A Few Things Ill Considered

“Global Warming” turns 35

This is not a reference to the recent three decades of rapidly increasing global temperatures, rather it is a reference to an aniversary of the first appearance of the term “global warming” in the peer reviewed literature. The paper was by Wally Broeker and titled “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”
i-b900fc73ef4a5298b24b92fc14d6ebe8-broecker1975_small.jpg


Real Climate has an interesting post on the details of this paper. The short version is that despite numerous considerations in the paper that have played out differently than hypothesized, the overall prediction of temperature by the end of the 20th century was remarkably accurate.

In this paper, Broecker correctly predicted “that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide”, and that “by early in the next century [carbon dioxide] will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years”. He predicted an overall 20th Century global warming of 0.8ºC due to CO2 and worried about the consequences for agriculture and sea level.
[....]
To those who even today claim that global warming is not predictable, the anniversary of Broecker’s paper is a reminder that global warming was actually predicted before it became evident in the global temperature records over a decade later (when Jim Hansen in 1988 famously stated that “global warming is here”).

Not that the history started there. Check out Spencer Weart’s History of Global Warming which begins over 150 years ago when even the most hard-core conspiracy theorist will struggle to connect it to a UN quest for world domination.

So this is something to keep in mind when climate inactivists insist we need to wait and see how these “global warming predictions” will play out. We have waited. Reality since those early predictions, plus impressive successes of admitedly limited global climate models are more than enough to realize we must act now and act aggressively to avert what looks more and more likely to be a terrible toll on humanity and all life on this planet.

Comments

  1. #1 ronnie
    July 31, 2010

    Real Science is “Real”
    Climate Change is “Real” Fact.
    Global Warming is “Real” Fact.
    Anthropogenic Global Warming is a “Real” (untested) hypothesis.
    The Effects of Global Warming are “Real” Opinions.
    “A terrible toll on humanity and all life on this planet” is “Real” Alarmism.

    There is NO “Real” Consensus on the likelihood of ‘a terrible toll on humanity and all life on this planet’.
    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    Global Warming means more greenhouse gases such as CO2 and H2O.

    CO2 is Food. H2O is Water.

    On average, humanity and all life on this planet will continue to benefit from more Food and Water.

    Based on the Global Warming history of the last 14000 years, the consternation over the effects of Global Climate Change is “Real” Silly… in my opinion.

  2. #2 lancep
    July 31, 2010

    I realize this could be a science fiction writer beating scientists to the punch, but I just saw “Soylent Green” for the first time and was surprised when Edward G. Robinson had the line “The greenhouse effect! Burning up all the time!” IMDB has it listed as a 1973 movie, 37 years ago.

    Ronnie, I’ll let those more qualified address most of your post, but I’ll make a quick point. Check out water poisoning. The lesson, just because something is good, and in this case necessary, doesn’t mean it’s impossible that too much of it could be a bad thing.

  3. #3 ronnie
    July 31, 2010

    Agreed. A very compelling movie.

    As for too much of a good thing-
    The questions are open to debate…
    What is the safe range for H2O, O2 and CO2?

    H2O; It does not seem likely that H2O is capable of reaching unsafe levels in the atmosphere.

    O2; A little research could afford an answer to what is too much oxygen in the atmosphere… something higher than 25%, perhaps.

    CO2; Currently, at 390ppm, CO2 appears to be at dangerously low levels. Thousands of independent experiments have indicated that a further tripling of today’s levels would be beneficial to most life on Earth.

  4. #4 Elaine Schattner, M.D.
    July 31, 2010

    I’m not a skeptic about climate change, but I am wondering about the graph. It appears to extend past 2010, i.e. into the future. Speculative? Model-based? An error?

    I hope that someone can clarify the origin and endpoint of the latest (rightmost) segment of the gray line.

  5. #5 cthulhu
    July 31, 2010

    looks like the graph goes up to mid 2010, the last box isn’t as wide as the others

  6. #6 Dappledwater
    July 31, 2010

    “Thousands of independent experiments have indicated that a further tripling of today’s levels would be beneficial to most life on Earth.” – Ronnie.

    So being extinct is beneficial?.

  7. #7 Dan Pangburn
    July 31, 2010

    Since 2001 the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has increased by over 20% of the increase from 1800 to 2001. According to the average of the five reporting agencies, the average global temperature has not changed much for several years and during the ten years from 2001 through 2009 the trend shows a DECREASE of 0.5°C/century. This is readily determined from credible data. A graph of the published data and links to the five data sources are given on pages 9, 10 and 11 at http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/corroborationofnaturalclimatechange.pdf.

    I wonder how large the measured separation between the rising atmospheric carbon dioxide level and not rising average global temperature will need to get before some begin to realize that climate related papers that have been published in what have been called reliable sources are not reliable and that so-called peer review of climate related papers has actually been de facto censoring.

    I derived an equation that, using the first law of thermodynamics, accurately calculates measured average global temperatures with a coefficient of determination of 0.88. The equation is included in the 27 June 2010 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. The equation is consistent with ongoing temperatures and projects a temperature downtrend. This work can be ‘peer reviewed’ by anyone that is competent with a spread sheet program.

    Now the issue is whether AGW activists will accept some embarrassment and stop the misinformation or will they hold out for total humiliation along with the rest of the AGW ‘consensus’.

  8. #8 Dappledwater
    July 31, 2010

    Is this attack of the flying monkeys?. The world is warming Dan, sad but true.

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html

    “NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries”

    “Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years”

    “Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.”

  9. #9 coby
    July 31, 2010

    Dan,

    2001-2009 inclusive is only 9 years, not 10. What would happen to your trend in you went 2000-2009? Or if you went 2002-2008? You would get markedly different results. That tells you that you are using too short time period for the noisiness of this data.

    See here

  10. #10 Dan Pangburn
    July 31, 2010

    The significant observation in the first link is that CO2 has increased 20% while the average global temperature has been essentially flat. The separation trend between the increasing CO2 and not increasing temperature has been growing for over a decade.

    The significant observation in the second link is an equation that calculates average global temperature for about 114 years and counting with a coefficient of determination of 0.88. Look at the graph in that link. Climate Scientists would be extatic if their GCMs could do anywhere near that well.

  11. #11 Dappledwater
    August 1, 2010

    “The significant observation in the first link is that CO2 has increased 20% while the average global temperature has been essentially flat.” – Dan Pangburn

    Actually the significant observation is that you refer to a period of atmospheric CO2 increase over 200 years, and then focus on only a recent short term global temperature time frame that fits with your preconceptions. That’s called cherry-picking, or as I prefer to call it – bullshit.

    Let’s see what the instrumental temperature record reveals:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

  12. #12 Dappledwater
    August 1, 2010

    “Climate Scientists would be extatic if their GCMs could do anywhere near that well.” – Dan Pangburn.

    They seem to be doing okay to me:

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/mostmods.jpg

  13. #13 Jack Jackson
    August 1, 2010

    I don’t really know if Global Warning is a real process, or just way of “telling a story” to promote politicians.. But if we’re talking about what steps we should take, one of fist things is to replace fossil fuels with renewable, pollution-free energy sources. We will have to do that anyway when oil and coal will run low.

  14. #14 pough
    August 1, 2010

    I don’t really know if Global Warning is a real process, or just way of “telling a story” to promote politicians..

    I don’t get how anyone can think of “I need to raise your taxes and legislate changes to the way you do most things” as anything other than political suicide.

  15. #15 Dan Pangburn
    August 1, 2010

    Dapple:
    I guess that you didn’t read my post at 7 very carefully and apparently did not look at the links. I graph all five of the agencies that report currently instead of the two that you picked and all three that report back to 1880, not the one that you picked.

    Regarding the Tamino link, the 32 year long up trends and downtrends of measured values compared to the steady progressive rise in the GCM calculations (because they are driven by the steady progressive rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide) might not be noticed by someone with a strong preconceived notion that CO2 is controlling the climate. The best calculations done by any GCM or AOGCM are significantly worse than are produced by my equation which is provided in the second link of my post at 7. Anyone that is competent in using a spreadsheet can check my work.

    So you are going to be surprised to discover that the average global temperature has been dropping steeply since March when the last El Niño peaked and the trend for at least the next 30 years will be down.

  16. #16 Steve L
    August 1, 2010

    Ronnie, please cite the best few of the thousands of studies that show increased CO2 and temperatures will be beneficial.

    Dan, it looks like you have made a falsifiable prediction. No matter that measurable parameters disagree with the conclusions your calculation implies; no matter that your model is lacking physics but has an overabundance of fudge factors. Let’s just see. Tamino used to have a post titled “You bet” that proposed a reasonable solution for determining who was right. I can only find a cached version:
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4QSqMJ7T69sJ:tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/+tamino+open+mind+you+bet&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

  17. #17 Dappledwater
    August 1, 2010

    “Dapple: I guess that you didn’t read my post at 7 very carefully and apparently did not look at the links.” – Dan Pangburn

    The first one didn’t work and the 2nd one linked to a bunch of unexplained guesswork. I just hope they keep your post there, so we can see your graph’s marked divergence with actual global temperatures over time.

    “The best calculations done by any GCM or AOGCM are significantly worse than are produced by my equation which is provided in the second link of my post at 7.” – Dan Pangburn.

    Really?, and what actual physical processes are included in your equation?. Did your equation predict polar amplification?, expansion of the tropics?, stratospheric cooling?, that night time temperatures would increase faster than daytime temperatures?, the polar sea ice asymmetry?, global cooling after the eruption of Mt Pinatubo?.

    A simple yes or no will suffice.

    “So you are going to be surprised to discover that the average global temperature has been dropping steeply since March when the last El Niño peaked and the trend for at least the next 30 years will be down.” – Dan Pangburn

    That ENSO globally produces periodic warming and cooling is hardly news to me, but are you suggesting that there will be no El Nino for the next 30 years!. That would indeed be a surprise.

  18. #18 David Canzi
    August 1, 2010

    I derived an equation that, using the first law of thermodynamics, accurately calculates measured average global temperatures with a coefficient of determination of 0.88. The equation is included in the 27 June 2010 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true.

    According to your equation the effect, on this year’s temperature, of a sunspot count of 3 in the previous year would be exactly the same as the effect on this year’s temperature of a sunspot count of 3 in 2000… or 1900… or 1000… or 1.

    The right side of your equation has a symbol, ESST, for Effective Sea Surface Temperature. In other words, your formula for the average surface temperature of the Earth contains a term representing the average surface temperature of the oceans. Your claims about your formula’s accuracy are suddenly unimpressive.

  19. #19 David Canzi
    August 1, 2010

    In the previous comment I was responding to Dan Pangburn, not Coby.

  20. #20 Steve L
    August 1, 2010

    I spent just a minute or two this morning trying to understand the equation that solved everything. You get to the part where he writes about fiddling with four fudge factors to maximize fit and start to wonder why you’re wasting your time.
    It looked to me that he was also using the increase in CO2 over a previous year rather than the cumulative increase that was used as an input. But maybe not. It’s such garbage I won’t be bothered to go for a second look.

  21. #21 crakar24
    August 1, 2010

    DW,

    I see you are strangely quiet about the rugby result, i suspect it is because we gave you a shellacking in the hockey (for our northern viewers i am not talking about the hockey where you are giving a big stick to belt the crap out of each other but the hockey where you have to wear a skirt if you want to play).

    I know its not much to hang my hat on but if you saw the rugby result you will understand.

    Anyway DW i read your posts and wanted to ask a question for anyone to answer. I watched a show the other night about the KT boundry and they surmised it was caused by a big kick ass piece of rock that hit the Earth 65MYA. This rock killed the dinosaurs and just about everything else with them.

    Apparently there was planet wide bush fires, Tsunamis 500 plus foot high etc and the Earth suffered from global warming because of all the carbon pollution produced by the asteriod. They then said eventually (thousands of years later) the Earth’s climate re settled back again but did not explain why.

    My question is if the asteriod started the process of global warming then why did it stop? If millions? of tons of carbon pollution was pumped into the atmosphere which in turn drove up the temps which would cause more carbon pollution which would drive up the temps, what was the mechanism that stopped or indeed reversed the process?

    I ask this question because the answer could help us in our quest to control the climate.

    Cheers

  22. #22 crakar24
    August 1, 2010

    Appologies to AGW, “Happy birthday to you” (should have been stated at the beginning of post 21)

    Coby i would like to question a couple of things if i may.

    Firstly, if your graph went back a bit more we would see a temp rise from 1860 to 1880

    So the complete graph would read as follows, note all dates are approx.

    1860 to 1880 a rise in temps
    1880 to 1910 a levelling or slight drop in temp
    1910 to 1940 a rise in temps
    1940 to 1970 a levelling or slight drop in temp
    1970 to 2000 a rise in temps

    I dont quite understand how you came to the conclusion that the temps have continued to rise post 2000, the graph seems to be a little misleading here. Also something interesting to note is that the warming and lack of warming tend to occur in approx 30 year periods do you think this is pure coincedence or is there another reason?

    Secondly you stated “This is not a reference to the recent three decades of rapidly increasing global temperatures…”

    As far as i am aware the three warming periods outlined above have almost identical warming rates if this is correct could you please explain in more detail what you meant by three decades of rapidly increasing global temps?.

    TIA

    Crakar

  23. #23 coby
    August 1, 2010

    I thought the surmised asteroid caused global cooling via tremendous amounts of dust put in the atmosphere? That would have fallen out musch quicker than CO2.

    You also need ot be sure of your numbers, “millions of tons” of CO2 is just a fraction of our annual output.

  24. #24 crakar24
    August 1, 2010

    Coby,

    No the narrator definitely said the planet experienced global warming due to carbon pollution, maybe the planet experienced cooling at first but later global warming.

    I used the term “millions” not sure the exact number but it was enough to trigger planet wide climate change. I suspect this part of the program was an exaggeration in an effort to get funding for the filming or maybe just to raise the credentials of the program (its a pretty big gravy train you know).

  25. #25 mandas
    August 1, 2010

    crakar

    “…..I dont quite understand how you came to the conclusion that the temps have continued to rise post 2000, the graph seems to be a little misleading here. ..”

    Really?? Look at the data points and tell us all what is wrong with it.

  26. #26 crakar24
    August 1, 2010

    I’m not a stats man Mandas so the graph might be right, however when we look at RSS we basically see a flat line from 2001 to 2009, UAH shows us the same thing.

    With that in mind i would have thought Coby’s graph would have a right hand bend somewhere near the end, but as i said i am not stats man.

    So i take it you agree the 1970 onwards warming rate is no more significant or “out of the ordinary” than the previous two (1860-80 & 1910-40)?

  27. #27 mandas
    August 1, 2010

    crakar

    I am not a ‘stats man’ either, but of course I do use stats in my work. But a couple of ‘lay points’:

    You can use graphs and data to suggest a lot of things, and they are commonly misused by a lot of people to ‘prove’ their points. For example, if you compress the x-axis and expand the y-axis you can make any upward (or downward) trend appear steeper (and the converse is true).

    Also, the interval chosen for your trend line is important. Deniers are fond of using a ‘trend’ over the past 9 years (from 2001) to suggest there has been no warming recently. You could even use a trend over 5 years (from 2005) and suggest temperatures are flat or decreasing. However, if you change your trend to a 20 or a 30 year period there can be no doubt that the trend is upwards. What do you think is a more valid expression of climate change?

    I seem to recall you have used post #22 before, in almost exactly the same format (I might be wrong, and if so I apologise) and we have had this discussion before.

    Is the increase in temperature significant in a statistical sense? Yes, there is no doubt it is.

    Is it significant in an ‘unusual’ sense? To answer this, you would have to show occasions when the conditions were the same as they are now, and where temperature rises did NOT occur (ie is it ‘out of the ordinary’ for temperatures to rise given the conditions?). If the conditions in the earlier periods are different to what they are now, you cannot make any direct comparisons of temperature rises to say they are ‘out of the ordinary’ then or now. There is little doubt that CO2 has been increasing over the last 100 years or so, but the recent period has seen a substantial acceleration in that time (so conditions are different now). Solar insolation was increasing in the first half of the twentieth century, but is now flat or decreasing. So obviously conditions were different then, and we could suggest that temperature chnages then were largely caused by solar irradiance, whereas that cannot be the case now. Here’s a link to an article with a lot of links to papers included:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm (sorry its an opinion site – the links are the important things).

    So – if you want to ask questions about the graph and what it means, you need to understand what underlies the graph, and then ask the right questions.

  28. #28 Dappledwater
    August 1, 2010

    “DW, I see you are strangely quiet about the rugby result, i suspect it is because we gave you a shellacking in the hockey” – Crakar.

    Hey, I can be gracious in triumph. What’s hockey, by the way?.

  29. #29 Dappledwater
    August 1, 2010

    Crakar, regarding the end of the dinosaurs:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8550504.stm

    “In the new study, scientists examined the work of palaeontologists, geochemists, climate modellers, geophysicists and sedimentologists who have been gathering evidence about the K-T extinction.

    They conclude that the Chicxulub space impact is the only plausible explanation for the devastation evident in geological records.”

    The initial impact would have triggered large-scale fires, huge earthquakes, and continental landslides which generated tsunamis.

    Dr Gareth Collins, one of the review’s co-authors from Imperial College London, said the asteroid hit Earth “20 times faster than a speeding bullet”. He added: “The explosion of hot rock and gas would have looked like a huge ball of fire on the horizon, grilling any living creature in the immediate vicinity that couldn’t find shelter.”

    Dr Joanna Morgan, another co-author from Imperial, commented: “The final nail in the coffin for the dinosaurs happened when blasted material was ejected at high velocity into the atmosphere. This shrouded the planet in darkness and caused a global winter, killing off many species that couldn’t adapt to this hellish environment.”

  30. #30 Dappledwater
    August 1, 2010

    A good friend of mine has dived some of the many tunnels around the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, which formed from the impact of the asteroid. Some very spectacular dive possies, that’s for sure.

  31. #31 crakar24
    August 1, 2010

    Mandas,

    Yes i understand the x-y situation and the problem with cherry picking dates both of which can be used to justify ones own position but the bit i do not understand is that Coby’s graph shows the temp change at 2001 to be about 0.7C and 2009/10 to be about 0.8 or more.

    Yet we know via RSS and UAH the temps have not risen over this period, as i said i am not a stats man.

    In regards to 3 identical trends, the reason i raised this issue was:

    To merely highlight the recent (post 1970) rise in temps is not anything unusual as we have seen it twice before. This of course does not reduce the role of co2 but shows that other factors can have the same affect on climate.

    The rise and fall of temps appears to be in 30 year cycles, coincidence?

    I think it would be fair to say that CO2 had very little to no effect on climate during the first two recorded rises in temp if so then what other factors caused the identical rise? If it was the sun then why did temps stop rising from 1910-1940? Did the sun change to cause this?

    I am sure there are explanations for all of this, such explanations would need to state that all pre 1970 factors have now stopped as this latest warming rate is identical to the previous two would you agree.

    By the way according to the CET in the early 1730′s the temp had risen 3.2 degrees over the last 4 decades, that warming rate beats the last 3 by a long way. Do we know with absolute certainty what caused that?

    You do not need to respond to any of this, i am just airing my thoughts but feel free to respond if you wish.

    Cheers

  32. #32 coby
    August 1, 2010

    crakar, sorry for the unsourced graphic, I took from RC and they say:
    “Global temperature up to June 2010 according to the NASA GISS data. Grey line is the 12-month running average, red dots are annual-mean values. The thick red line is a non-linear trend line. “

  33. #33 crakar24
    August 1, 2010

    Post 28,

    Hockey, its a game that has a stick named after Manns graph and…..oh i get it you were being sarcastic.

    Post 29,

    Yeah that sounds like the show i watched, it was hard to get your head around the devastation.

    Post 30,

    I watched a show about those caves they are absolutely awesome. They would dive in one cave and appear somewhere else in the middle of the jungle, they would then take a GPS reading that way they could map the caves. Eventually they found a way out to the ocean.

    There was one sink hole for want of a better word that they dived in, they just began to sink and as they sunk they came across dead vegetation etc and it got to the point where they had to resurface because the corrosive water was eating away at their wet suits.

    Unbelievable stuff.

  34. #34 crakar24
    August 1, 2010

    Coby,

    Thanks for that, i think GISS does run higher than the others probably why i got confused.

  35. #35 mandas
    August 1, 2010

    A few unrelated points:

    We won’t talk about the rugby.

    I do a lot of diving, and caves scare the crap out of me. On the weekend I was in Whyalla for the cuttlefish breeding season. Weather was too bad on Sunday, but some spectacular sights in Saturday. Watching them change colours when the males fight and posture is amazing.

    On the extinction of the dinosaurs. I saw a documentary last night which suggests that the asteroid impact also caused a major planet-wide fireball that would have incinerated almost all animal and plant life that was above ground at the time, but anything a few inches below ground or under water would have survived. I might try and do some more research on it for interest to see if anyone else has similar thoughts.

  36. #36 Michael
    August 2, 2010

    Hey Craker and Mandas,
    I saw that show too. I found it entertaining and informative.
    I was reminded of that 1970′s movie, Meteor… “That sucker’s five miles wide!” and pride myself on doing a good Sean Connery impression: “Shit! Five miles!”

    More importantly though, I posted a message to both of you on this thread on Saturday…
    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/07/100_climate_deniers_go_into_a.php

    Mandas, do you remember the links and book that you recommended to me a few months ago? (I can’t find the thread)
    I’ve been a bit slack about reading, but now I wanna!

    Craker, do you know Michael Smart? (he is involved with the Scramjet project. I know him through school)

    I agree, there’s no need to mention the Rugby….

  37. #37 mandas
    August 2, 2010

    Michael

    I can’t remember the book off hand, but will do a search and try and recall for you.

  38. #38 crakar24
    August 2, 2010

    The weirdest thing about cuttle fish is that the “small” boy ones change their colors to look like the girls and when the “big” boys are not looking they go hell for leather.

    Of course there is a price to pay when/if you get caught but i am sure it is worth it.

  39. #39 Dan Pangburn
    August 3, 2010

    Dapple 17

    Sorry about the link not working. It works fine outside of this website and can be accessed at the April 10 posting reached through http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true.

    As to your list of processes accounted for, the equation implicitly accounts for the results of ALL actual physical processes including, but not limited to, those that you listed.

    David 18 and Steve 20: Even though apparently the analysis is too complex for you, you can still look at the pictures . . .or be surprised.

  40. #40 Dappledwater
    August 3, 2010

    Dan, what physical process or processes does your equation describe?, i.e. what do you think is causing the global warming?.

  41. #41 Dan Pangburn
    August 3, 2010

    Since the calculated average global temperature anomalies are compared to measured anomalies, all physical processes are implicitly accounted for. ALL of them.

    The equation and measurements for the last few years indicate to me that global warming ended years ago. Details of the analysis indicate that the temperature run up was due mostly to increase in energy stored in the planet due to sunspots as determined by the time-integral of sunspot number. Next was increase in average ocean surface temperature (ESST) and about 20% from CO2 increase. The calculated influence of CO2 is dropping at an accelerating rate so, as atmospheric CO2 continues to increase and temperature doesn’t, the calculated influence of CO2 will decrease.
    If the ocean cycles continue as they have for about 114 years then they are in a down trend. The sun hasn’t been this quiet this long since 1913 so that also indicates a downtrend. CO2 is a minor factor so it won’t be able to overwhelm the other two. Conclusion, temperatures are not going to trend up for at least about 25 years. The ENSO et al will undoubtedly cause temperatures to rise and fall about the trend.

    This is discussed fairly extensively in my papers that can be accessed through the link at 38. above. The influence of sunspots is causative to average cloud altitude and thus average cloud temperature. Clouds cover over half the surface of the earth and radiate to cold space in proportion to the fourth power of their absolute temperature. This is a far more important phenomenon than TSI which is what most, if not all, other climate researchers have been looking at. There are multiple sub-links, to the data sources that were used, to facilitate checking everything.

  42. #42 mandas
    August 3, 2010

    Well it looks as though Dan has discovered something that has eluded all the other climate and solar scientists for all these years. Seriously Dan?

    I don’t pretend to be an expert on solar irradiance or the climate – unlike you I guess – so I will not even attempt to debunk your opinion piece (note I did not call it a paper). I would just ask you to explain why every scientist working in the field disagrees with you and what you think they are missing. You could do a search yourself for real papers on the subject, but here are a couple you may wish to read (have you read any?):

    http://kaares.ulapland.fi/home/hkunta/jmoore/pdfs/mooresunspot2006GL026501.pdf

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/rt26l31g36262151/

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281977%29034%3C1995%3ASEOTIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/full/nature05072.html

  43. #43 Dan Pangburn
    August 4, 2010

    Mandas,
    Where did you get the idea that ALL climate scientists believe that human activity has had a significant effect on climate. You need to get out more. A good website to start at is Dr. Roy Spencer’s at http://www.drroyspencer.com/. I don’t know of any climate scientists that still consider AGW to be valid except those whose paychecks depend on it.

    The papers that you list (dated from 1977 to 2007) all address TSI and the 11 year solar cycle as not being causative to climate change. I agree, TSI is not a significant driver. However, I have never found any other study that looked at the time-integral of sunspot number and the first law of thermodynamics except my own. The influence on climate is that the cumulative effect of sunspots, through magnetic shielding, influence cosmic rays which alter average cloud altitude and thus average cloud temperature and cloud radiation to space. The details and links are in my papers.

    You will find lots of discussion about where the climate scientists have gone wrong in my 17 page paper that you can get to through the link. Briefly, it appears that there is a lot of science that some ‘climate scientists’ either don’t understand or are not aware of. Why isn’t thermalization even mentioned in the IPCC reports? What about the Andean/Saharan ice age which happened when the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was over ten times the present? If they really understood how feedback works they would recognize that the temperature trend direction changes during the last glaciation could not have occurred if there was significant net positive feedback. Without net positive feedback even their own climate models do not project significant global warming. And there is the even simpler concept that they ignore, that humanity could not exist if feedback were positive. Then there are the climate models themselves. The IPCC uses over twenty of them. That type of program works by calculating step by step forward in time using some science and some approximations (clouds are parameterized). Uncertainty grows as this type of program calculates forward in time such that anything beyond a few days becomes nothing but uncertainty. What they call global climate programs are actually global weather programs and they are quite good at predicting weather for a few days. It is woefully naive to think that a weather program becomes a climate program if you run it longer.

  44. #44 skip
    August 4, 2010

    I don’t know of any climate scientists that still consider AGW to be valid except those whose paychecks depend on it.

    Can you give an example of, say three climate scientists who believe it only because their “paycheck depends on it”.

    Question, Dan: Do you believe in the theory of evolution? (It is relevant; bear with me.)

  45. #45 Chris S.
    August 4, 2010

    Dan, that’s a phenominal amount of work you’ve put in there – are you planning to work it up into a paper? On a blog you’re not really going to get the recognition from the experts you deserve, if you submit it for publication then those who get their science information from the journals and not the interwebs will be able to evaluate it.

  46. #46 Chris S.
    August 4, 2010

    PS: All this talk about rugby & hockey and not a single mention of the magic number 88 (as in 88 all out)?

    How I laughed.

  47. #47 Dan pangburn
    August 4, 2010

    Skip,
    All of the contributors to the IPCC reports for starters. Then there are all those whose paychecks depend on getting government grants to study GW related stuff. Tens of billions of dollars have been spent in futile attempts to prove that CO2 increase is a primary cause of global warming.

    Evolution is verified by observation, everything from DNA to diversity, and therefore is no longer just a theory. I could go much much deeper . . .

    Chris,
    A paper is in review. There is a problem with bias and defacto censoring with some journals. Dr. Roy Spencer at UAH pretty much gave up on them and established his own website. Just Google Roy Spe and his name appears.

    Since ‘Cap and Trade’ is no longer being seriously considered there is much less motivation and urgency to pursue this. The issue will go away completely as the atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase and temperatures continue to not go up.

  48. #48 skip
    August 4, 2010

    Ok then, a couple of more questions.

    1. Are you an expert in biology?

    2. Do you believe the IPCC contributors pretend they believe AGW is true because they know they won’t get paid if they don’t? I mean, in other words, they need to say, “I believe global warming is both anthropogenic and potentially dangerous”–or words to that effect–or they know their funding will be cut off. Is this your contention?

    Clarifying . . .

  49. #49 Chris S.
    August 4, 2010

    “A paper is in review.”

    Please let us know the reviewer’s comments, they should be illuminating (with my submissions they always help to make the paper better, even if it can sometimes be demoralising – I’ve had several rejected, as has any scientist worth the name).

    “There is a problem with bias”

    Bias in your results? That could be a problem – how have you accounted for potential bias? Have you carried out properly rigorous statistics? R is a good program for this, though I tend to use Genstat (I prefer the functionality).

    “and defacto censoring with some journals.”

    There’s several hundred journals out there, just try & steer clear of those not listed in ISI – as with blogs, they won’t be read by anyone who matters. You should always try to aim for the higher impact journals but sometimes lower impact journals will accept controversial things that may up their citation rate (though they try & steer clear of anything glaringly incorrect).

    I am aware of Roy Spencer’s work, thanks.

  50. #50 mandas
    August 4, 2010

    Dan

    I understand that you may have put a lot of work into your opinion piece that you linked to earlier, but if you want us to take it seriously you really do need to put a hell of a lot more work into it, and make it more than just an opinion piece with lots of pretty pictures in it.

    Now I may not be a climatologist or an expert on the sun, but I do know how to write and read science papers, and your is – to be frank – extremely poorly written, and would not pass any level of review. While that might sound harsh, given that you claim to possess a Masters in Science, you would understand the correct way to reference material in a paper, how to provide all the necessary sources of the information you are using, how to explain and reference a graph so that it is not just a pretty picture and we are able to understand the methodolgy behind it, how to explain your methodology, and how to draw reasonable conclusions based on what you have written. And unfortunately, you fail on all those basic levels. Let me just take a few examples.

    On page 7 of your April paper entitled “Corroboration of Natural Climate Change” written on 18 March 2010, you have a graph which purportedly shows ocean heat content. No information is provided on the source of the data, and no information is proviided on the methodology you used to construct it, so we have no way of determining whether it is accurate and what potential errors there are in the trends etc (the link doesn’t work so we can’t use that to check it). But, even if it is 100% perfectly valid, this statement next to the graph is ludicrous, and demonstrates a biased perspective which is not supported by the information:

    “….An assessment of ocean heat content reported by NOAA at
    the start of 2010 at http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/temperature is shown in the adjacent graph which shows that ocean warming stopped abruptly in 2005….”

    Any reasonable (ie unbiased) person looking at the graph would definitely NOT draw the same conclusion. I could look at it and say that ocean warming stopped abruptly in 1977 – oh wait, it started again in 1994. Or I would ask you to use a trend line which is greater than a single year and then ask you what the graph was indicating.

    You make claims about safe CO2 levels which have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of your paper by the way, you have just thrown them in to try and score points. Your paper is about whether climate change is natural or not – not what the threats of climate change are. But even given that, your information is worthless. If you want to go down that path, you need to discuss the real implications of elevated CO2 levels. So what if humans can tolerate elevated CO2 in submarines? What are the effects on the environment? On plants? On the ocean? On other animals?

    You use wikipedia as a reference source for your description of cosmic ray effects. To use wikipedia as a reference in a supposedly scientific document is, well, stupid. You do the concept of using primary sources and what wikipedia is, right? And anyway, no-one takes the issue of cosmic ray flux seriously anymore. It has been shown to be completely irrelevant in study after study. I suggest you do a little reading on the subject.

    At the end you throw in a paragraph our of the blue headed ‘Other Considerations that Refute AGW’, that has a single sentence and a link on the whole CO2 lags not leads issue, which has been so thoroughly debunked that it does not even bear repeating any more. How about you do some reading on the subject (no – not bloggers, science papers).

    And you final statement “….Lack of correlation demonstrates lack of causation….” proves that you do not understand statistics at all, and you do not understand complex systems . You CAN have causation without correlation, if there are confounding factors (which there always are in complex systems, and which there definitely ARE in the climate).

    I could go on and on about the weaknesses in your opinion piece. I am not an expert on solar irradiance and sunspots etc, so I won’t even attempt to touch your calculations. Who knows, they may even be perfectly valid and as a result you should win the Nobel Prize. But I can say, without fear of contradiction, that the document is poorly written, poorly referenced, poorly constructed, and contains so many logical and argumentative fallacies that it is virtually worthless.

    As Chris has suggested, why don’t you submit it for publication, or show it to an expert in the subject for comment (just go to your local university, I am sure someone could help).

  51. #51 Dan Pangburn
    August 4, 2010

    Skip,
    1. I have no idea what your criteria for expert is. I know a lot about many things. Do you have a specific question?

    2. I don’t know what IPCC contributors think. I don’t know of any program that is or was funded by a government grant that has the objective of determining what causes the planet to warm and cool.

    Years ago I discovered much disagreement and erroneous data on the subject of global warming and decided to research it myself (unfunded). About two years ago what I found convinced me that atmospheric CO2 was not a major controlling factor. Recently I derived the equation that calculates the measured temperatures with a coefficient of determination of 0.88. I have used it to project the climate trend for decades. The climate appears to be following that trend. I don’t get another data point until after 2010 ends.

  52. #52 crakar24
    August 4, 2010

    Post 51

    “Skip,
    1. I have no idea what your criteria for expert is. I know a lot about many things. Do you have a specific question?”

    I got this one “An expert is a person who has made every mistake possible in a very narrow field”

    Post 46,

    88 is a bingo number (as in Two fat ladies) it does not belong in a cricket score book, oh how the mighty have fallen. I am not looking forward to when the Poms get here.

  53. #53 Dan Pangburn
    August 5, 2010

    Crakar,
    So you are an expert on experts.

  54. #54 skip
    August 5, 2010

    Do you have a specific question?–Dan

    I’ll rephrase.

    How did you, Dan, arrive at the conclusion that

    Evolution is verified by observation, everything from DNA to diversity, and therefore is no longer just a theory.?

    Question clearer?

    I don’t know what IPCC contributors think.–Dan #51

    I’m not sure how to reconcile this with your response to my request to list “three climate scientists who believe it only because their ‘paycheck depends on it’”? To wit:

    All of the contributors to the IPCC reports for starters.–Dan #47

    Or this statement . . .

    I don’t know of any program that is or was funded by a government grant that has the objective of determining what causes the planet to warm and cool. — Dan #51

    . . with this:

    Then there are all those whose paychecks depend on getting government grants to study GW related stuff. Tens of billions of dollars have been spent in futile attempts to prove that CO2 increase is a primary cause of global warming. –Dan #47

    There must be a reconciliation in all this somewhere. Just trying to get to the bottom of it for clarity’s sake.

  55. #55 crakar24
    August 5, 2010

    Dan,

    That was a joke, i do that sometimes and yes that is about as funny as i can get.

    Having said that I am indeed an expert on everything, just ask me a question and i will have an answer :-))

    Also Dan dont take too much of what these guys say to heart, they enjoy sitting there with their noses pressed up against the monitor waiting for a skeptic to pop up. They really are not that bad in fact i have grown rather fond of them over the past year or so.

  56. #56 skip
    August 5, 2010

    But only take Crakar’s mitigation as far as it goes, Dan. He and I have already agreed to spend eternity together among the damned; the only remaining dispute is the bar tab.

    And I’ll play quite fair and not even include Hellish Mean Temperatures when calculating warming trends.

    In the mean time, I’m still curious as to how we can disentangle your exact perspective on some of the issues mentioned above.

  57. #57 mandas
    August 5, 2010

    skip

    Dan’s opinions on AGW and associated issues are plastered all over the net – he is a very prolific blogger and has been hawking his views on sunspots in quite a number of forums. You may wish to have a look at the opinion piece he wrote and linked to in post #39. There is a lot of work in it re his belief in a statistical correlation between the time integral of sunspot activity and global climate, but there are also a lot of throw-away lines on related issues as well.

    I have expressed some of my concerns re his work above – but I have a lot of others as well (such as correlation does not equal causation, and his attempt to demonstrate a causal link between sunspots and climate is seriously flawed – non-existant really!). The opinion piece really is just an attempt to find something – anything – other than GHGs as the cause of observed climate change. I suggest it fails to do this, because the suggested causal link does not exist, and the suggested correlation itself is not particularly robust. But of course he would have a different view.

    Have a read of the article and tell me what you think (the relevant document is at the link at post #39 – I believe it is the third one down entitled “Corroboration of Natural Climate Change by Dan Pangburn (Licensed Mechanical Engineer) Life Member of ASME”.

  58. #58 Dan Pangburn
    August 6, 2010

    Skip,
    Please precisely identify the flaws.

    So you don’t consider a coefficient of determination of 0.88 to be particularly robust. What would it need to be to be robust?

    In the later paper, the first one at the link, I included the effect of CO2. As reported there, the calculated influence of CO2 is aboout 20% now but declining at an accelerating pace.

  59. #59 skip
    August 6, 2010

    Dan:

    Did you mean to respond to Mandas (#57)?

    My questions are in #54.

  60. #60 mandas
    August 6, 2010

    Dan

    I have already identified some of the flaws above, and it should not take me to show you how poorly you have argued your case. I mean, you claim to have a Masters in Science for god sake. Do you really think your opinion piece would pass muster as a paper – even for a first year student. You need to provide evidence to support your arguments and you need to provide references for your claims – and you don’t. Do you really need me to point that out to you?

    And if you are going to make a claim for having discovered the answer to climate change when everyone else is wrong, you are going to have to have some credible causality. As it is, you have none. You have based your whole argument on a mechanism that has been discredited. Maybe if you read wider on the subject and had a look at some papers which disagree with your position you might discover this. But then, that’s also just basic science.

  61. #61 Dan Pangburn
    August 7, 2010

    mandas,
    I had overlooked your post at 50. The following comments refer to that post.

    If I ever decide to write a ‘scientific paper’ for publication in a peer reviewed journal I will investigate the preferred writing style, format and protocols. My paper is an engineering analysis based on thousands of hours of climate research spread over several years. It may not be in the format that you are used to but all of the explanations and links to the source data are there for anyone who is interested enough and is competent with a spreadsheet. If they do the analysis they will verify my findings.

    Links to all source data are provided in the current paper. There is no reference to the time-integral of sunspot number because I could not find any except for the connection between sunspots, cosmic rays and cloud elevation.

    I don’t know why NOAA changed the web address. It was valid at the time of writing. If they don’t change the web address again, you will find the graph at http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/. WUWT has in interesting animation at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/31/nodc-revises-ocean-heat-content-data/ of the change (increased down-slope for the last 5 years or so) that NOAA made between Sept 2009 and Jan 2010. A simple Google of ‘ocean heat content’ got these websites. If this graph was the only data available I would agree that it is too soon to tell much. But it corroborates many other indications including the equation that I derived that calculates average global temperature since 1895 with a coefficient of determination of 0.88..

    The bit on CO2 level was included to disclose that the rising CO2 level will have no significant effect on any living thing except to increase food production.

    As to the influence of cosmic rays on climate, I just Googled ‘cosmic rays climate’ and the few articles that I looked at (the first three are science papers) all connected cosmic rays and cloud formation. Didn’t you do the cloud chamber experiment in high school science class? The mistake that is made is relating cosmic rays to cloud area when the important factor is the influence on average cloud altitude (and thus cloud temperature). The full explanation and links to relevant papers are given on page 16 of my paper (link dated April 10, 2010 which you have looked at). I guess that you missed my caution on page 5 regarding Wikipedia on controversial subjects. The Wikipedia article on cosmic rays provides an adequate explanatory concept for readers who don’t know what a cosmic ray is and that is the only relevance of that reference.

    In order to debunk that the CO2 lag observation refutes CO2 as a driver you would have to believe that it does not matter that a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the carbon dioxide level higher during the downtrend than it had been when the temperature was increasing. It matters. Anything that debunks the lag is nothing but an exercise in creative writing no matter how often it is repeated.

    I am wondering how you decide that you have causation when there is no correlation. Is that your proof of AGW?

    So you think that a coefficient of determination of 0.88 is worthy of a Nobel Prize. I have lost all respect for that award…but I would take the money anyway. If you can, please identify at least one glaring logical fallacy in the analysis.

    Obviously, I have shown it to all who have access to the internet. Hits so far on my papers are over 7000. Other scientists and engineers have critically reviewed my work and most of their comments have been incorporated.

  62. #62 Chris S.
    August 7, 2010

    Dan on Aug 4th (post#47) “A paper is in review.”

    Dan on Aug 7th (post#61) “If I ever decide to write a ‘scientific paper’ for publication in a peer reviewed journal I will investigate the preferred writing style, format and protocols.”

    Does not compute…

  63. #63 skip
    August 7, 2010

    What am I the silent partner?

    I am still watching the above discussion, Dan. But if you find the time I’d love to see your answers to my questions . . .

  64. #64 mandas
    August 7, 2010

    Dan

    As Chris has suggested, there are inconsistencies in some of your claims. The statement that Chris questioned you about has me extremely confused – and not just for the reason suggested by Chris.

    Anyone who has ever studied for a science degree knows exactly what the style and format are for a science paper. They will have had it taught to them, they will have been required to write them and been marked on them, and they will have researched and read hundreds of them in the course of their studies. It is staggering that you are suggesting that you do not understand this and would need to investigate it. Why is that?

    If you want your opinion piece to be taken seriously, then you are going to have to address this. You keep on about having demonstrated the cosmic ray causality linkage, but you make virtually no case for it in your document. Just providing a wikipedia link so lay people can read it is meaningless – you are going to have to address the case both for and against it, and tell us why the case for it is valid.

    You suggested you did a Google search for ‘cosmic rays climate’, but so what? Just the suggestion that you did that tends to detract from the credibility of your case. As I keep stating, you tell us you have a Masters in Science (and I have no reason to doubt you), so I presume you do know how to do a real document search and how links etc are prioritised on Google. Why don’t you do a real search for ‘cosmic rays climate’ to see what you can find? I am going to suggest you go to Google Scholar or Web of Science and uncover a little more information, then read the case both for and against. You will find papers both for and against it, but you will also find that the older papers tend to be for it, while the more recent papers which attempt to reproduce the results tend not to find any support for the hypothesis. In any case, you need to discuss this in your opinion piece. Why do you think the case is credible, and why do you think the opposing views are incorrect? But of course, since you have a Masters degree I am telling you how to suck eggs – anyone with a post-graduate degree in science (or indeed, an undergraduate degree), would know all about this and would ensure it was addressed in anything they wrote that was attempting to put forward a scientific viewpoint. I am not sure why you have not done so. If I was being unkind, I might suggest you were cherry picking information – which you well know is very unscientific, and is a standard tactic of those who do not have a strong case, and who are writing to convince the ill-informed.

    And all the linkages etc are NOT in your document. There are actually precious few, and most of them are just simple hyperlinks. You do know how to reference properly, right? How about you do so? And no – linking to Wattsupwiththat or Realclimate or any one of hundreds of opinion pieces on the internet is meaningless – you need to link to real science done by real scientists in real papers with real data. Its not hard you know.

    Finally, you weaken your case by throwing in a few opinion based arguments at the end and throughout your document that have nothing to do with your thesis, and are just there to highlight your personal perspectives. I mentioned the paragraph about tolerance for CO2 before, which is nothing more that a couple of throw away lines with no evidence to support them, and which have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Why is it even there? Similarly with the CO2 lags not leads argument. Why is it in there? If you believe you need it, you are going to have to provide a lot more evidence and argument to support your case – not just a paragraph which appears to be nothing more than an opinion on the subject.

    So – you have stated that you have shown your document to other scientists and engineers and most of their comments are incorporated. Given its appearance at the moment, I tend to doubt that. But you have shown it to one more right here, and he has given you some feedback. Up to you what you do with that.

  65. #65 mandas
    August 7, 2010

    Dan

    Sorry, missed this out of my previous post.

    “…..The bit on CO2 level was included to disclose that the rising CO2 level will have no significant effect on any living thing except to increase food production….”

    Oh really? Then you have done NO reading on the subject. You might want to read a little about the effects on the nutritional content of plants, about plant allelopathy, arthropods, marine organisms, changes in herbivore behaviour, etc. Come on – do some science!

  66. #66 Matt Bennett
    August 8, 2010

    This Dan is fucking hilarious. Lucky for all those underworked overpaid climate scientists that he happened by and deigned to cast a corrective eye across their mis-guided work.

    It’s a good thing he wasn’t burdened down by any contextual knowledge of AGW or it’s history…..

    Hilarious. And he claims a science degree! Skip, continue your line of inquisition, the silence speaks volumes.

  67. #67 Matt Bennett
    August 8, 2010

    PS – Michael, see my comment under the “YouTube” thread for the link to that book.

  68. #68 Dan Pangburn
    August 8, 2010

    This website is to be commended for immediately printing all comments. I suspect active censoring at all blogs where only contributions that agree with the blog owners preconceived beliefs (either pro or con AGW) are permitted. I have a long list of sites where my contributions are censored.

    Mandas,
    My degrees are in Mechanical Engineering. Perhaps you are not aware that knowing how to write scientific papers for publication in peer reviewed journals is not a requirement in engineering.

    My paper (not any that you have seen) is in editorial review and, if published, will be an opinion piece. It is written and the source data linked so that anyone that wants to, that is competent with a spreadsheet, can verify the findings.

    It is unfortunate that you can not find the links. If you would point out the specific data source to which you can not find the link I would appreciate it and be happy to point to it or provide it if missing.

    Since I have discovered what caused the fluctuations in average global temperature (R^2 = 0.88 for a period longer than a century and on-going) and thus determined that the ‘consensus’ appear to be barking up the wrong tree, I have lost nearly all interest in further research on this subject.

    Those who visit http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true will discover a progression of my papers the last three of which include a graph which shows the excellent correlation between calculated and measured temperatures. The 4/10/10 paper describes the basis for the equation but the trend prediction was for no CO2 and no sunspots (like the Maunder Minimum). The next paper includes the influence of CO2 but still no sunspots. The most recent (added 6/26/10) paper adds the trend prediction assuming that the sun acts like it did following 1913 which was the last time that the sun was as quiet for as long as it has been during the current solar minimum.

    Since the cap and tax mistake has been set aside (in the U.S.), I have lost most of the motivation to spread the findings of my research.

    As the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to go up and the average global temperature trend does not, the number of AGW advocates will continue to dwindle. Some may even consider it to be a travesty that their preconceived notions turn out to be wrong. However, those who just like to argue and get their jollies out of nit picking what others have done will probably continue forever.

  69. #69 mandas
    August 8, 2010

    Dan

    “….As the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to go up and the average global temperature trend does not, the number of AGW advocates will continue to dwindle…”

    Huh? On what basis do you claim that the average global temperature is not going up? If you are basing that on the graphs in your opinion piece, then you are demonstrating a shocking case of cherry picking. Your whole document is an attempt to demonstrate your case by use of statistical analysis and correlation. That suggest you do understand about trend lines etc, so you well know that to cherry pick the period of your data, and to use statistically insignificant periods for trend lines is extremely poor science, and in most scientists views would be considered unethical.

    Why did you pick 2001 and 1998 as the starting points for your analysis of temperature trends? Don’t answer – we all know the reason. I know they will probably lap it up over at Watts up with that and other non-scientific denialist websites where they all have a preconceived worldview and latch on to anything that they think proves they are right. But in the world of science, it won’t fly! I’m going to suggest you should try to be a bit more ethical in your data treatment and do it again.

  70. #70 skip
    August 8, 2010

    Dan:

    I realize you’re a very ambitious and busy guy and I respect that, but for me I need a baseline from which to evaluate your general claim to have the refutation of the conventional AGW hypothesis. (Unlike Matt I am withholding judgment as to whether you are “hilarious”–fuckingingly so or otherwise.)

    The questions I asked earlier regarding your thoughts on evolution and the at least apparent inconsistent commentary regarding the IPCC et al were in earnest and quite pertinent, in my view. I would be quite grateful if you could find the time to address them. I’ve reprinted the relevant post for your convenience:

    Posted by: skip | August 5, 2010 3:27 PM:

    Do you have a specific question?–Dan

    I’ll rephrase.

    How did you, Dan, arrive at the conclusion that

    Evolution is verified by observation, everything from DNA to diversity, and therefore is no longer just a theory.?

    Question clearer?

    [And with regard to some of your statements regarding the sources of AGW science:]

    I don’t know what IPCC contributors think.–Dan #51

    I’m not sure how to reconcile this with your response to my request to list “three climate scientists who believe it only because their ‘paycheck depends on it’”? To wit:

    All of the contributors to the IPCC reports for starters.–Dan #47

    Or this statement . . .

    I don’t know of any program that is or was funded by a government grant that has the objective of determining what causes the planet to warm and cool. — Dan #51

    . . with this:

    Then there are all those whose paychecks depend on getting government grants to study GW related stuff. Tens of billions of dollars have been spent in futile attempts to prove that CO2 increase is a primary cause of global warming. –Dan #47

    There must be a reconciliation in all this somewhere. Just trying to get to the bottom of it for clarity’s sake.

  71. #71 crakar24
    August 8, 2010

    Dan,

    Next time dont release your data to people that are not trained in the field until you get hammered with multiple FIO requests, even then seriously contemplate deleting all your data just in spite.

    This way you will not have to endure such persecution akin to the days of burning witches……..Another skeptic shown the door (in the background, raucous laughter and plenty of back slapping).

    Good luck and farewell.

    Crakar

  72. #72 mandas
    August 9, 2010

    Ummmmmm crakar. It isn’t his data. He just manipulated other people’s data.
    Nice try though

  73. #73 Dappledwater
    August 9, 2010

    Yeah, where’s the raw data?. I don’t like my data cooked.

  74. #74 ronnie
    October 9, 2010

    Steve L wrote:
    “Ronnie, please cite the best few of the thousands of studies that show increased CO2 and temperatures will be beneficial.”
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4QSqMJ7T69sJ:tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/+tamino+open+mind+you+bet&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

    Posted by: Steve L | August 1, 2010 9:49 AM

    Dear Steve,
    how about one better… Thousands of independent experiments, all producing the same conclusion: Higher (>385ppm) levels of CO2 are beneficial to plant life.
    Yes, real life proof that more CO2 is a good thing.

    Your local University extension service would be eager to share their knowledge concerning the beneficial properties of CO2.
    -ronnie

  75. #75 skip
    October 9, 2010

    ron:

    This is the wealth of cites i get when I hit your link:

    Your search – cache:4QSqMJ7T69sJ:tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/ tamino open mind you bet – did not match any documents.

    Suggestions:

    * Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
    * Try different keywords.
    * Try more general keywords.
    * Try fewer keywords.

    Really did your homework, didn’t you?

  76. #76 mandas
    October 9, 2010

    Hi skip / ronnie

    The link that ronnie provided wasn’t his own, it was just a cut and paste of one that Steve provided over two months ago. Ronnie was supposedly responding to Steve’s earlier post where he challenged ronnie to provide evidence of his claim that there were thousands of studies that indicated that increased CO2 and temperatures would be beneficial. Unfortunately, once again ronnie has just repeated his earlier claim and failed to provide a single link or source.

    What ronnie needs to do is to read a little more widely on the subject. Yes ronnie, there are LOTS of studies which show that plants, including food crops, grow larger under conditions of increased CO2 – no-one would disagree with that. But what you are failing to do is also read about the other effects on plants. They may grow larger, but their nutrient uptake is less, and they actually have poorer food value. They also produce more toxins to ward of insects and competition from other plants, so rather than higher CO2 being a boon to food production, it is actually a cost. Further, other studies have shown that the changes to weather patterns from rising temperatures will have a further detrimental effect on crop production. So overall, climate change will have a detrimental effect on human agriculture, not the positive influence you are trying to suggest – even though you have failed to provide any sources for your claims.

    I have provided numerous links studies which support exactly what I am saying right here on this blog. A little tip for you – do some reading and understand what you are talking about before forming an opinion on a subject. It stops you from looking like a fool.

  77. #77 ronnie
    October 10, 2010

    Dear mandas,
    Thanks for the civil response.

    No attempt was made to appeal to an authority to back up my view that more CO2 would be good for life on Earth. I acknowledge that it may be contrary to popular science to hold such an opinion.

    My point was that such a position is supported by scientific facts established by thousands of independent experiments.

    This is in contrast to forecasts based on computer models (no real life tests or experiments) that SUGGEST that CO2 is bad for life on Earth.

  78. #78 skip
    October 10, 2010

    Ronnie, this is just a blatant, classic straw man fallacy:

    forecasts based on computer models (no real life tests or experiments) that SUGGEST that CO2 is bad for life on Earth.

    Ron, if you’re only trying to fool us with this reasoning, I cannot even give you credit for guile. If you have successfully fooled yourself with it you simply have to learn more about what climate science does and does not say.

    Climate science is *not* attempting to reverse the easily understood principle that life on earth requires, among other things, carbon, and the fact that our biosphere provides it is essentially good, in and of itself.

    It is atmospheric carbon dioxide *in excess* that is problematic because it acts as a greenhouse gas. It is the long term effects of the resultant warming that is projected to have deleterious effects on the biosphere, and yes, life. Its not a negation of the biological importance of carbon for organisms.

    Do you understand this simple distinction? We shouldn’t even be having this discussion.

    I used a version of this analogy with myrrh on another thread: Water is necessary for life and thus, a good thing. Does this mean its ok to fill your lungs with it?

  79. #79 mandas
    October 10, 2010

    ronnie

    “…..No attempt was made to appeal to an authority to back up my view that more CO2 would be good for life on Earth. I acknowledge that it may be contrary to popular science to hold such an opinion….”

    It is not ‘appealing to authority’ to produce the evidence. And to hold an opinion without evidence means the opinion is worthless.

    “…My point was that such a position is supported by scientific facts established by thousands of independent experiments….”

    So – produce one of these experiments, don’t just assert that they exist. It shouldn’t be too hard if there are thousands of them. And I know it won’t be hard, because I have read many papers of experiments which suggest that increased CO2 helps some plants to grow larger. But……

    “…This is in contrast to forecasts based on computer models (no real life tests or experiments) that SUGGEST that CO2 is bad for life on Earth….”

    No ronnie, you really didn’t read my post at all did you, or any of the earlier discussion in this issue where these exact points were raised. Yes, increased CO2 makes some plants grow larger, but it also has detrimental effects on N and nutrient uptake, and the benefits of increased CO2 are vastly different in C3 and C4 photosynthetic plants.
    This is not computer modelling, these results are derived from observation and experiment. Oh, and if you think that CO2 is ‘good for life on Earth’, what about all the marine life, arthropods that feed on plants, and all the larger animals that breathe oxygen, not CO2?

    You really do need to read more before forming an opinion. Here are just a couple of links to get you started.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/32370807846477k5/

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00101.x/abstract

    Science is fun! You should try it some time.

  80. #80 ronnie
    October 10, 2010

    Hej skip,
    You Wrote:
    “Ronnie, this is just a blatant, classic straw man fallacy:”

    Straw man… not sure how, but O.K.

    skip:
    “Ron, if you’re only trying to fool us with this reasoning, I cannot even give you credit for guile. If you have successfully fooled yourself with it you simply have to learn more about what climate science does and does not say.”

    Perhaps my point lacked clarity…
    It seems to me that giving an opinion about what may happen at some unspecified time at some unspecified place the same weight as the science fact that CO2 is ‘food’ is… well, unscientific.

    skip said:
    “Climate science is *not* attempting to reverse the easily understood principle that life on earth requires, among other things, carbon,…”

    Is that what is meant by a straw man?
    No such assertion was stated or implied.

    skip said:
    “It is atmospheric carbon dioxide *in excess* that is problematic because it acts as a greenhouse gas…”

    Agreed… which begs the question; At what level does CO2 become problematic?
    It seems to me that over 1200ppm would be a reasonable estimate.

    skip said:
    “Do you understand this simple distinction? We shouldn’t even be having this discussion.”

    Since there has been no mention of this on my part, again, we agree.

    skip, the issue I have- is with employing words of certitude such as “will have” in supporting a claim that CO2 higher than, say… 350ppm is bad. Higher CO2 has been demonstrated to enhance life.

    Once again, Fact versus opinion… I choose fact.
    ronnie

  81. #81 ronnie
    October 10, 2010

    Dear mandas,
    thanks for the informative links.
    After reviewing both, it is interesting to note that there was a noticable change in plants when cultivated using higher than average levels of CO2 in the air. I may use those links in the future to support my opinion that higher CO2 is beneficial cotton.

    mandas wrote:
    “Oh, and if you think that CO2 is ‘good for life on Earth’, what about all the marine life, arthropods that feed on plants, and all the larger animals that breathe oxygen, not CO2?”

    It makes sense that, they too, benefit by having a more robust food supply.

    By increasing CO2 (the first link in the food chain) it will have a domino effect on the subsequent links.

  82. #82 mandas
    October 10, 2010

    ronnie

    “….. I may use those links in the future to support my opinion that higher CO2 is beneficial cotton….”

    WTF??!! Did you even read the links I provided?? Did not this statement from the abstract mean anything to you:

    “…. High CO2 grown plants had lower photosynthetic capacity than 350 l l-1 grown plants when measured at each CO2 concentration. Reduced photosynthetic rates were correlated with high internal (non-stomatal) resistances and higher starch levels. It is suggested that carbohydrate accumulation causes a decline in photosynthesis by feedback inhibition and/or physical damage at the chloroplast level….”

    And then you said this:

    “….It makes sense that, they too, benefit by having a more robust food supply…By increasing CO2 (the first link in the food chain) it will have a domino effect on the subsequent links….”

    Why does this make sense? Just because organisms at the bottom of the food chain supposedly benefit from changed environmental conditions does not mean organisms at the top of the food chain would benefit from the same change. Phytoplankton would benefit if the whole world was covered in water, but I am willing to bet it wouldn’t be all that great for us. And anyway, you obviously didn’t read the second link I provided to you, which included this statement:

    “…Synthesis of existing data showed an average 14% reduction of N concentrations in plant tissue generated under elevated CO2 regimes…”

    So what about that leads you to conclude that there will be a ‘more robust food supply’ from plants grown under elevated CO2? Everything I have shown you demonstrates that elevated CO2 is detrimental to the food value of plants. Yet despite this, you still adhere to your earlier, ill-informed, view. You have formed an opinion based on a complete lack of evidence. Then when you are shown evidence that your opinion is wrong, you completely disregard the evidence, even to the point that you draw the opposite conclusion to what the evidence clearly shows.

    It would appear from your statements that you are – not to put too fine a point on it – seriously delusional.

  83. #83 ronnie
    October 10, 2010

    Hej mandas,

    You wrote:
    “ronnie
    WTF??!! Did you even read the links I provided?? Did not this statement from the abstract mean anything to you:

    “…. High CO2 grown plants had lower photosynthetic capacity than 350 l l-1 grown plants when measured at each CO2 concentration. Reduced photosynthetic rates were correlated with high internal (non-stomatal) resistances and higher starch levels. It is suggested that carbohydrate accumulation causes a decline in photosynthesis by feedback inhibition and/or physical damage at the chloroplast level….”

    Yes, mandas, I found the above quite fascinating. Higher levels of CO2 apparently resulted in more efficient cotton plants. Increased sizes (weight) of 115% were observed in plants that used less sunlight and therefore worked less at photosynthesis than their counterparts grown under the same conditions -except for the higher CO2. I suspect that another variable -water, would also be used more efficiently i.e. the megacotton would require less water than their lower CO2 brethren due to smaller/fewer stomata and less transpiration, for example.

    mandas:
    “Why does this make sense? Just because organisms at the bottom of the food chain supposedly benefit from changed environmental conditions does not mean organisms at the top of the food chain would benefit from the same change.”

    Perhaps… but it seems that such an issue is open to reasonable debate.

    mandas”
    “…anyway, you obviously didn’t read the second link I provided to you, which included this statement:
    ‘…Synthesis of existing data showed an average 14% reduction of N concentrations in plant tissue generated under elevated CO2 regimes’…”

    Obviously???
    Again, when viewed from the perspective of ‘efficiency’; that 14% N reduction means less resources for more production… which is a good thing.

    Yes, mandas, based on the evidence presented in those two studies my conclusion is that CO2 has a positive (more efficient)impact on plant growth… if that is in conflict with the judgment of those who conducted the study it would be interesting to read their rational argument.

    Sincerely,
    ronnie

  84. #84 mandas
    October 10, 2010

    ronnie

    “…Perhaps… but it seems that such an issue is open to reasonable debate….

    It may be open to debate, but not to reasonable debate. On one side is science and knowledge, on the other is ignorance and ill-informed opinion.

    “…..if that is in conflict with the judgment of those who conducted the study it would be interesting to read their rational argument….”

    So ummm, why don’t you read the papers then, instead of forming your own conclusion based on a preconceived political worldview that is totally at odds with both what the authors have said and what is known in the broader world of science in general. But I guess that would be against your modus operandi wouldn’t it?

  85. #85 Chris S.
    October 11, 2010

    H/T Stoat:

    “Recent studies using diverse physiological and biophysical approaches indicate that tropical ectotherms may be particularly vulnerable to climate warming, even though observed and predicted tropical warming is relatively small. Our estimates suggest that tropical ectotherms are also experiencing large increases in metabolic rate (Fig. 1b). Such increases will have physiological and ecological impacts: warmed tropical ectotherms will have an increased need for food and increased vulnerability to starvation unless food resources increase, possible reduced discretionary energy for reproduction, increased rates of evaporative water loss in dry environments and altered demographies. Larger increases in metabolic rates of tropical soil biota may explain larger absolute changes in tropical soil respiration. Furthermore, metabolic increases should alter food web dynamics, leading to elevated rates of herbivory and predation, as well as changes in the spread of insect-borne tropical diseases”

    From http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09407.html

  86. #86 skip
    October 11, 2010

    . . . supporting a claim that CO2 higher than, say… 350ppm is bad. Higher CO2 has been demonstrated to enhance life.

    Once again, Fact versus opinion… I choose fact.

    Simply repeating the same straw man: “CO2 does a demonstrably good thing, therefore, more CO2 cannot be bad.”

    ron, I’m sorry for being curt, but there will come a point, if you pursue this with any sincerity and rigor, that it will dawn on you that you’re simply making a very, very bad argument.

  87. #87 ronnie
    October 11, 2010

    Dear skip,
    I am perplexed by a continued reference to a straw man.
    Would you please elaborate on your assertion that my opinions on the effects of enhanced CO2 on cotton, based on a study -specifically this one offered by mandas…
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/32370807846477k5/
    is a straw man?

    My comments directly relate to CO2, it’s effects, and my conclusions… how is that a straw man argument?

    straw man fallicy:
    “A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

  88. #88 mandas
    October 11, 2010

    ronnie

    How is it going with reading those studies I linked for you? Have you read the whole things yet and discovered what the authors were arguing, or are you still content with just forming your own conclusions despite what the authors may have been saying?

    Maybe I am just being unfair to you and you don’t have access to the full paper. Okay then, here’s a complete paper for you to read:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01511.x/full

    I reckon it will take the strongest denialist delusion to be able to misinterpret that one! But I am sure you can give it a go.

  89. #89 adelady
    October 11, 2010
  90. #90 skip
    October 12, 2010

    your assertion that my opinions on the effects of enhanced CO2 on cotton, based on a study -specifically this one offered by mandas…is a straw man?

    This is amazing ronnie, because *it is yet another straw man*; I was never commenting on your specific claims about CO2 and cotton.

    I was commenting on *these* generalizatons:

    a claim that CO2 higher than, say… 350ppm is bad. Higher CO2 has been demonstrated to enhance life.

    The theory of anthropogenic global warming does *not* disavow the possibility that higher CO2 can “enhance life” by itself through the mechanisms of plant biology. That no doubt varies across species and environmental context. What AGW does say is that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause hazardous global *warming*–even if the plants are eating well in the mean time. It won’t do your CO2-enhanced cotton any good, ronnie, if other symptoms of atmospheric warming (like reduced fresh water supply) kill it anyway.

    Your statement blatantly switches the subject in order to ignite the straw man. Atmospheric CO2 that can cause potentially massive and deleterious warming is a separate semantic, conceptual, and scientific issue from CO2 as “food”.

    Your subsequent dodge?

    It seems to me that giving an opinion about what may happen at some unspecified time at some unspecified place the same weight as the science fact that CO2 is ‘food’ is… well, unscientific.

    And yet that is exactly what *you* are doing when you say increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere is good because higher CO2 has been demonstrated to enhance life–based on a study of cotton.

    When a consensus of the world’s leading scientists conclude that putting more CO2 in the atmosphere will be, on balance, better for the biosphere than doing not doing so, ronnie, *then* I’ll believe it.

    Ronnie, one of two things is going on here.

    (1) You’re an unmitigated genius. You’ve pulled one over on the climate community by remembering what everyone else forgot–that CO2 is plant food, and after all, more food is good. We should be grateful that you’ve set us straight.

    (2) You’ve fixated on this CO2-is-food-and-thus-not-to-be-feared argument because it sounded really clever to *you* when you first read it on Wattsupwithat or Jo Nova or wherever, and it is unfathomable to you that you could have been sucked in by a stupid argument, so now you’re going to fall on your sword defending it.

  91. #91 ronnie
    October 14, 2010

    Hej mandas,
    you wrote:

    “ronnie, How is it going with reading those studies I linked for you? Have you read the whole things yet and discovered what the authors were arguing, or are you still content with just forming your own conclusions despite what the authors may have been saying?

    Maybe I am just being unfair to you and you don’t have access to the full paper. Okay then, here’s a complete paper for you to read:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01511.x/full

    I reckon it will take the strongest denialist delusion to be able to misinterpret that one! But I am sure you can give it a go.” [Posted by: mandas | October 11, 2010 9:19 PM]

    Thanks for the link to the full article. You are correct… I did not have assess to it.

    That is a heck of a lot to digest. Frankly, I do not read very fast so it will take some time to evaluate all this information. Plus, I easily get distracted by the numerous citations and supporting links (I’ll open one and start reading that article which in turn has links I opened and so on and so on.)

    O.K… here is what the authors concluded…
    “Rising atmospheric [CO2] is likely to reduce the protein concentration for many plant crops. The magnitude of this effect is difficult to estimate, due to the sensitivity of this effect to experimental conditions. Nonetheless, decreases in protein are seen consistently for several species across a wide range of experimental techniques and environmental conditions. This effect may be partially mitigated by increased use of nitrogen fertilizers, but this seems likely to be only a partial solution to the effect of elevated CO2 on the protein concentration of human foods. The effect of atmospheric CO2 on crop protein therefore seems likely to be of genuine importance for human nutrition in and beyond the 21st century.”

    And you are in part, correct again, mandas. My conclusions do not coincide with every one of the authors, specifically… ” This effect may be partially mitigated by increased use of nitrogen fertilizers”.

    That seems to be an odd conclusion, IMO.

    Oh, And yes! I still prefer to think for my self and draw my own conclusions.

    One more point, mandas… As you may already know (if you have followed this thread from the beginning), I accept climate change, global warming, and Anthropogenic Global Warming so the term “denialist” may not be an accurate label for me.
    -ronnie

  92. #92 mandas
    October 14, 2010

    ronnie

    A few things:

    “……My conclusions do not coincide with every one of the authors, specifically… ” This effect may be partially mitigated by increased use of nitrogen fertilizers. That seems to be an odd conclusion, IMO….”

    Well no, and this is why the demands by some denialists for everything to be wrapped up in one neat paper for them is so flawed – you need to be able to read and integrate information from multiple sources in order to develop a clearer picture. If you read the earlier papers I linked to, you would have realised that one of the effects of elevated CO2 on plants is to reduce their nitrogen fixing capability. This is extremely important for agriculture, because modern monoculture farming strips nitrogen from the soil, and soils degrade significantly over time. Nitrogen has to be put back into the soil by the use of legumes or nitrogen fertilisers. Unfortunately, if the nitrogen fixing capability of plants is degraded by elevated CO2, you will need significantly more nitrogen fertilisers to overcome this. This is both expensive and is detrimental to the wider ecosystem (nutrient run-off into waterways etc).

    “…..Oh, And yes! I still prefer to think for my self and draw my own conclusions……”

    I prefer to think for myself as well. But I do not know everything, and it would be foolish of me to draw conclusions that are the complete opposite of experts that do know what they are talking about, especially if I am unfamiliar with the nuances of a subject.

    “….I accept climate change, global warming, and Anthropogenic Global Warming so the term “denialist” may not be an accurate label for me….”

    The term denialist is not just restricted to those who refuse to accept AGW. It is a label that should be applied to those who refuse to accept (ie deny) clear evidence when it is presented to them. In your case, you have indicated that you accept AGW, which is good. But you appear to be suggesting that elevated CO2 and temperatures will be a good thing, and that is just in complete opposition to every single piece of evidence on the subject.

    I am a wildlife scientist, and I spend most of my working life (and a good part of my personal life) involved in reading and researching the effects on the ecosystem of habitat destruction, pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change. And I can tell you unequivocably, that AGW is a very bad thing for the environment. And because we live in the environment and rely on it for our own well being, it is bad for us as well.

  93. #93 ronnie
    October 15, 2010

    Dear mandas,
    hope this clears up any uncertainty for you.
    Each of the links you have generously offered have been reviewed. Granted, some read more throughly than others. That is not to say that I did not find them all interesting (pardon the double negative), but as I said earlier, that’s a lot to digest.

    mandas,
    There are published studies on AGW that you may not agree with and I do not believe you would be foolish to disagree with anyone of the authors as long as it was based on logical reasoning.

    Well, I suppose that my opinion that ‘elevated CO2 and temperatures will be a good thing’ does contradict every single piece of evidence presented by studies that look at the negative aspects of climate change. Perhaps there has been some research into the positive aspects of global warming and that evidence may coincide with some of my views.

    A wildlife scientist is a very honorable profession. Thank you for your dedication to such an important part of our existence.

    IMO, GW is not all bad, nor is it all good. I do have some concerns for the Moose in our state that do not seem to be doing so well and may be, in part, because of regional warming.

    Over the last decade I have come to suspect that climate change in the form of global warming is a good thing… especially when one considers the alternatives.
    -ronnie

  94. #94 skip
    October 15, 2010

    Perhaps there has been some research into the positive aspects of global warming and that evidence may coincide with some of my views.

    . . . Over the last decade I have come to suspect that climate change in the form of global warming is a good thing.

    So you’ve reached a conclusion based on the *hypothetical possibility* that there is science to vindicate it.

    Ronnie, if you want to be sunbathing in Nome in 2050 then yes I suppose in that limited sense “global warming is a good thing.” There will be winners and losers with climate change; that is accepted. The problem is that our best evidence suggests the former will vastly outweigh the latter and that the negatives will vastly outweigh any benefits—even including (yes, I’m afraid so) a bounty of plant-feeding CO2.

    … especially when one considers the alternatives.

    What alternatives—if it got colder, stayed the same? If the Mariners win the pennant?

    Where are you getting all this?

  95. #95 ronnie
    October 17, 2010

    Dear mandas,
    “Maybe if you read wider on the subject and had a look at some papers which disagree with your position you might discover this. But then, that’s also just basic science.”

    Good advice.
    -ronnie

  96. #96 ronnie
    October 24, 2010

    Global Warming is responsible for melting the glaciers that once covered the Midwest. This appears unrelated to AGW and seems to be embraced as an overall positive event (Who believes the world would be better off with Minneapolis entombed beneath 4000 feet of ice and snow…ahh, never mind -don’t answer that!)

  97. #97 ronnie
    October 24, 2010

    skip, you wrote on October 15, 2010 8:41 PM
    “Where are you getting all this?”

    Hej skip,
    thanks for asking.

    I got ‘all this’ over the past 6 years or so, by trying to better understand climate change issues.

    It started when I thought the worst President in the history of the United States was wrong because he did not support the Kyoto Agreement. So I thought it only prudent to back up that opinion by learning more about Man made Global Warming. I found out it had another name… Anthropogenic Global Warming. The more I read the less sense it made. Eventually I gave up trying to prove Pres. Bush was an idiot based on his lack of support for “Kyoto”. That is when I realized I was a skeptic: circa 2004.
    -ronnie

  98. #98 skip
    October 24, 2010

    Interesting.

    I would love very much to be a climate skeptic; your help would be greatly appreciated.

    Could you give a few specific examples of what you read prior to when [You] realized [you were] a skeptic: circa 2004.?

  99. #99 ronnie
    October 24, 2010

    The conclusions I read concerning the Keeling Curve appeared odd to me. It seems to me that the seasonal oscillations should not remain stable if Man’s carbon contribution was combining with deforestation to cause warming.

    Blaming CO2 for a slower spinning Earth seemed odd.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1816860.stm

    And a faster spinning Earth seems silly…
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11555

    And the claim that there is scientific consensus about what awaits Mankind in a future with higher atmospheric CO2…well, as you can see -it just ain’t so.

    Hope that helps,
    ronnie

  100. #100 skip
    October 24, 2010

    The conclusions I read concerning the Keeling Curve appeared odd to me.

    Whose conclusions?
    What conclusions?
    Where did you read them?
    Why were they “odd”?

    It seems to me that the seasonal oscillations should not remain stable if Man’s carbon contribution was combining with deforestation to cause warming.

    What do you mean by “seasonal oscillations”—just seasons? So if the climate is warming because of anthropogenic carbon, we would expect there to be no winter, summer etc? Is this your point? Why does it “seem” this way to you? Are you bringing literature/expertise to this subject you wish to share?

    Here is what your first link says about the role of increased CO2 in slowing the earth’s rotation:

    Belgian scientists have identified a hitherto unsuspected benefit of global warming – more time for all of us.
    . . . .But for the next century the increase will be so small that if you blink, you’ll miss it.
    . . . The actual amount of lengthening would be small – microseconds per year.
    . . . But over longer periods, the scientists say, the effect would be measurable, with a probable increase of 11 microseconds per decade during this century . . . That would mean an increase of 11 hundred-thousandths of a second over the entire century.

    This is from your second link on warmer oceans having an opposite effect:

    as the oceans warm up, Earth will start rotating a wee bit faster, reducing the length of a day

    While “it is not something you will see on your watch,” says Landerer, it’s comparable to the influence of the tidal friction of the Earth-moon system, which slows our planet down by 2.3 milliseconds every 100 years.

    What do these two slightly contradictory and completely trivial effects (the latter is probably the most reliable as the authors of that study have had the benefit of seven additional years of science) have to do with the question of whether global warming is caused by human carbon emissions?

    (I also noticed your second link was dated 2007, so obviously it could not have been part of your pre-2004 conversion.)

    And the claim that there is scientific consensus about what awaits Mankind in a future with higher atmospheric CO2…well, as you can see -it just ain’t so.

    A 2007 study contradictions a 2002 study on a question of trivial physical effects of increased carbon on the earth’s rotation speed and this proves there is no scientific consensus about global warming?

    Ronnie, you’re telling me—a guy who would really, really like to *not* believe in anthropogenic climate change—that your own skepticism on the matter is born of how things “seem” and that a consensus is shattered because scientists dispute whether the earth’s rotation will be trivially increased or decreased by future carbon emissions.

    My suggestion: Think about this a lot more, read a lot more, be leery of how accurately you can discern scientific truth from how things “seem”, and recognize the difference between essential matters and minutiae in a scientific subject as important as climate change.

  101. #101 ronnie
    October 25, 2010

    skip wrote on October 24, 2010 11:49 AM…
    “My suggestion: Think about this a lot more, read a lot more, be leery of how accurately you can discern scientific truth from how things “seem”, and recognize the difference between essential matters and minutiae in a scientific subject as important as climate change.”

    skip,
    That is sound advice, especially the parts about thinking and
    the difference between essential matters and minutiae in science.
    -ronnie

  102. #102 skip
    October 25, 2010

    It is.

    Do you intend to follow it?

    Also, ronnie: I asked approximately 10 questions of you in my last post. Is it on your agenda to answer any of them?

  103. #103 ronnie
    October 25, 2010

    “Think(ing)”:
    Yes.
    “…the difference between essential matters and minutiae in science”:
    Yes. I think that these two contradictory studies of Earth rotation are extremely important. They illustrate the lack of the claimed consensus among the science community.

    skip, do you agree with mandas’ advice?
    He suggested that… “Maybe if you read wider on the subject and had a look at some papers which disagree with your position you might discover this. But then, that’s also just basic science.” -mandas

    As to answering your inquires:
    “Whose conclusions?”
    Keeling’s, (the father).

    “What conclusions?”
    CO2 is accurately measured on the volcano.

    “Where did you read them?”
    Don’t recall.

    “Why were they ‘odd’?”
    If nature was removing less CO2 from the atmosphere, yet there is more from the burning of fossil fuels, why does the percentage of CO2 removed remain the same?

    skip: “What do you mean by “seasonal oscillations”—just seasons?”
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=5620
    Please note the sawtooth blue line in the graph on this NASA web site… it is the regular wobbles that reflect the inhalation and exhalation of the Earth as plants grow, absorbing carbon in the summer and spring, and decay, releasing carbon in the fall and winter. That is what I meant when I said ‘seasonal oscillations’.
    Would not the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels add to the overall amount that plants would ‘inhale’ and with fewer plants would not the oscillation’s amplitude be shorter?

    skip: “Why does it “seem” this way to you?”
    It seems logical.

    skip: “Are you bringing literature/expertise to this subject you wish to share?”
    No.

    skip: “What do these two slightly contradictory and completely trivial effects (the latter is probably the most reliable as the authors of that study have had the benefit of seven additional years of science) have to do with the question of whether global warming is caused by human carbon emissions?”
    Nothing. IMO, it demonstrates the serious nature of the latent contradictions in AGW hypothesis.

    skip: “(I also noticed your second link was dated 2007, so obviously it could not have been part of your pre-2004 conversion.)”
    Pre-2004?

    skip: “A 2007 study contradictions a 2002 study on a question of trivial physical effects of increased carbon on the earth’s rotation speed and this proves there is no scientific consensus about global warming?”
    ‘trivial’? Perhaps.
    ‘proves’? No.

    skip: “Ronnie, you’re telling me—a guy who would really, really like to *not* believe in anthropogenic climate change—that your own skepticism on the matter is born of how things “seem” and that a consensus is shattered because scientists dispute whether the earth’s rotation will be trivially increased or decreased by future carbon emissions.”
    No.
    Yes.
    Yes.

    skip, I did not mean to ignore your questions. I do hope that my tardy responses offer some insight.
    -ronnie

  104. #104 ronnie
    October 25, 2010

    Hej skip,
    a question for you…
    How did you manage to italicize my quotes when responding to me?

    Thanks in advance,
    ronnie

  105. #105 mandas
    October 25, 2010

    ronnie

    I hate to butt into a private(?) debate between yourself and skip, but there was something in your last post that confused me, and I just needed the point clarified if you don’t mind.

    You seem to be suggesting that two contradictory studies regarding the possible future effects on the Earth’s rotational speed demonstrate a lack of consensus regarding the theory of AGW, and that this is somehow reason enough to doubt the validity of the theory. Am I reading that right?

    If so, why? I mean, do you also think that two contradictory opinions on the mechanism underpinning evolution also invalidates that theory? (and yes, there are many different opinions on evolution). Do different views on the origin of the universe invalidate the ‘big bang’ theory?

    Why have you singled out AGW as the theory that you wish to dispute, based on what are quite normal scientific processes? Could it be because you have no problem with the concept of evolution, and are therefore quite willing to accept that it is perfectly normal for scientists to disagree without the whole theory being invalidated. But when it comes to AGW, you have a politically motivated worldview, and therefore seize on something – anything – that you think might validate your preconceived ideas.

    Do you really think that consensus means that every scientist agrees with every minute detail of a theory, and that any disagreement means the whole theory is wrong? Because that would be one of the most naive and, quite frankly, stupid ideas that I have ever heard postulated. That is not how science works. It never has and it never will.

    Please tell me that I just misread you, or you were being sarcastic or ironic or something other than what it appeared.

  106. #106 skip
    October 25, 2010

    Yeah, pretty much what Mandas said, ronnie (yap yap).

    Good examples from evolutionary theory include the origin of flight, or amphibian morphology–even the specific lineage of homo sapiens. All interesting, all worth studying, and all very much in dispute–but no threat to the *overall* theory of evolution.

    And even these analogies are too charitable, because the question of whether the earth rotates faster or slower by a fraction of a second per century as the result of increased carbon isn’t even relevant to the theory of anthropogenic global *warming*. If we were debating the policy implications of anthropogenic global *spinning* then we might be on subject.

    So you doubt that CO2 is increasing, based on your understanding of a source you can’t remember regarding the Mauna Loa observatory? Just trying to clarify.

    Re: HTML

    Coby taught me this. Its impossible to explain in a post because the second I show what the format codes are they just execute the format.

    This link explains it:

    http://www.tizag.com/htmlT/htmlitalic.php

  107. #107 coby
    October 26, 2010

    Just to contradict skip:

    <em>text to italicize</em&gt

    (sorry, friend! ;-)

  108. #108 coby
    October 26, 2010

    As usual, it is really hard to know if ronnie is serious that he questions the whole theory of anthropogenic global warming (human CO2 emissions are causing an ongoing rise in global temperatures that represents a threat to the biosphere and human society) because of two studies of some hypothetical and minute changes in the earth’s rotation.

    Regardless, as mandas writes this is a wildly wrong approach to any scientific theory. The kind of consensus ronnie is asking for simply does not exist in any scientific field and is more than throwing out the baby wih the bathwater, it is condeming the whole house at the same time.

    ronnie, it is useful to define what the consensus actually is, it does not involve predictions of alterations in the earth’s rotation or orbit! It is 1. CO2 is rising 2. Human’s are causing this 3. this rise is causing temperatures to increase 4. all else being equal a doubling of CO2 will cause about 3oC of warming on a decadal to single century timescale.

    The impacts of such an increase are subject of legitimate debate.

  109. #109 skip
    October 26, 2010

    Just to contradict skip:

    Don’t start with me, nincompoop . . .

    But in seriousness, ronnie, that is how you do it, although I can tell right now that yet another worthwhile skill is printing model code without having it actually act as code, like Coby just did above, if you know what I mean.

    Right now, ronnie, now my money is on you being (a) relatively serious in these arguments you’re making but(b) relatively educable.

    I am also trying to be as open as possible to being persuaded that I’m wrong about AGW as with any other (well . . . *almost* any other . . . ) participant on this forum. Frankness requires me to say that citing an authority you don’t remember regarding the Mauna Loa observatory and doubting there is a consensus about AGW because there two lines of research contradict each other regarding trivial effects on the earths rate of *spin* are unpromising starts.

    To wit:

    If nature was removing less CO2 from the atmosphere, yet there is more from the burning of fossil fuels, why does the percentage of CO2 removed remain the same?

    I actually don’t know the precise answer to this question because I don’t know if the percentage removed *is* expected to stay exactly the same as CO2 increases. The problem (and trust me its a sore point on the forum right now because it touches on issues of CO2 “residence time”) is that the earth’s capacity to absorb CO2, even if it does change over time, is not as rapidly responsive to concentration changes as we are putting carbon into the atmosphere.

    While that is a eunuch answer devoid of technical detail, you should satisfy yourself that even climate *skeptics* don’t dispute that CO2 concentrations are increasing; they only dispute the likely *effects* of it (which is another debate).

  110. #110 ronnie
    October 26, 2010

    mandas wrote:
    “I hate to butt into a private(?) debate between yourself and skip, but there was something in your last post that confused me, and I just needed the point clarified if you don’t mind.”

    No worries, mate. All are welcome… thats the beauty of this medium.

    mandas wrote:
    “You seem to be suggesting that two contradictory studies regarding the possible future effects on the Earth’s rotational speed demonstrate a lack of consensus regarding the theory of AGW, and that this is somehow reason enough to doubt the validity of the theory. Am I reading that right?”

    Well, those are a lot of issues you raise.
    Actually, in context to the posting, I believe there were 3 links. One study said spin faster, one said slower and one said BOOM.

    Two out of three perhaps, but regardless, it is unlikely that there is any scientific consensus as to what GW will look like in the future 100, 1000, or 10,000 years… that was my point.

    Oh, and mandas, not to start another point of contention, but semantics are more an ‘essential’ than just ‘minutiae’ when matters of science are concerned. That said… IMO, AGW is an hypothesis as opposed to theory because it has not been tested by independent, verifiable experiments. Would you agree?

    mandas wrote:
    “…do you also think that two contradictory opinions on the mechanism underpinning evolution also invalidates that theory? (and yes, there are many different opinions on evolution). Do different views on the origin of the universe invalidate the ‘big bang’ theory?

    No.

    mandas wrote:
    “Why have you singled out AGW as the theory that you wish to dispute,…”
    See post #97.

    mandas wrote:
    “…based on what are quite normal scientific processes?”
    Normal? That is a whole issue of it’s own.

    mandas wrote:
    “Could it be because you have no problem with the concept of evolution, and are therefore quite willing to accept that it is perfectly normal for scientists to disagree without the whole theory being invalidated. But when it comes to AGW, you have a politically motivated worldview, and therefore seize on something – anything – that you think might validate your preconceived ideas.”

    The THEORY of evolution simply makes sense.

    mandas wrote:
    “Do you really think that consensus means that every scientist agrees with every minute detail of a theory, and that any disagreement means the whole theory is wrong?”

    That WOULD be silly.

    “Please tell me that I just misread you, or you were being sarcastic or ironic or something other than what it appeared.”

    OK… you misread me.

    Sincerely,
    ronnie

  111. #111 ronnie
    October 26, 2010

    text to italicize
    Dear coby,
    skip wrote:
    Coby taught me this. Its impossible to explain in a post because the second I show what the format codes are they just execute the format.

    so… will it work?
    -ronnie

  112. #112 ronnie
    October 26, 2010

    Hej coby and skip,
    you guys are GREAT!
    It worked.

    Just goes to show… nothin is impossible in this day and age.
    Thanks to both of you!!!!!
    -ronnie

  113. #113 ronnie
    October 26, 2010

    Hej guys,
    It is getting late. I’ll be back…

  114. #114 mandas
    October 26, 2010

    ronnie,

    A few points:

    “….IMO, AGW is an hypothesis as opposed to theory because it has not been tested by independent, verifiable experiments. Would you agree?….”

    No I wouldn’t. A theory does not have to be testable by experiment. Independent, verifiable observations are sufficient. If you believe what you wrote, then you would have to say the same about the theory of evolution, or plate techtonics, or relativity, or the ‘big bang’ theory, or…., or….., or…. etc.

    from #97 “….Anthropogenic Global Warming. The more I read the less sense it made….”

    Please tell me one single thing about AGW which does not make sense. The concepts underpinning it – indeed the whole theory – is one of the simplest things imagionable, and is consistent with everything else we know:
    1 – CO2 absorbs LWR (we have known this for over a century and you can confirm it with a very simple experiment)
    2 – If you change the chemical composition of the atmosphere, you are going to change the climate (this is so obvious that it should not need me to point it out to you – especially seeing you are fond of things that ‘make sense’. But if you want an extreme example, look no further than Venus)
    3 – Humans are changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere by increasing the amount of CO2 (this is confirmed by verifiable, direct measurements and is an undisputable fact).

    So what about this does not make sense to you?

    “…..”…based on what are quite normal scientific processes?”
    Normal? That is a whole issue of it’s own….”

    In what way?

    “….The THEORY of evolution simply makes sense…..”

    So, you accept the theory of evolution because it makes sense (to you!), but you reject AGW because it doesn’t make sense (to you!). Is that correct?

    Tell me then, what do you think of quantum theory? Does it make sense to you? (if you say yes, I know you are lying). Do you therefore reject it as well?

    See, that’s the problem ronnie. You are being completely selective in the things you choose to accept and reject, not based on evidence or even on the basis of whether they make sense or not, but on the basis of some other criteria which you feel necessary to avoid explaining. That makes it really difficult to have a rational discussion, because I just don’t know the basis for your decisions. I’m easy when it comes to science – I tend to accept evidence, which is why I have absolutely no problems with AGW.

    What’s your real reason?

  115. #115 Richard Simons
    October 27, 2010

    Ronnie @ 110:

    Two out of three perhaps, but regardless, it is unlikely that there is any scientific consensus as to what GW will look like in the future 100, 1000, or 10,000 years… that was my point.

    The articles you linked to indicate that one effect of global warming will cause a very slight increase on Earth’s speed of rotation, while another effect of global warming will cause a very slight decrease in the speed of rotation. Both of the changes are so slight that, after a century, the changes in Earth’s position would be undetectable to anyone without precision equipment. Yet you use this to justify saying ‘it is unlikely that there is any scientific consensus as to what GW will look like in the future 100, 1000, or 10,000 years’. You must be really hard up for something to justify your position.

    IMO, AGW is an hypothesis as opposed to theory because it has not been tested by independent, verifiable experiments. Would you agree?

    No. A theory is an explanation for a body of observations, that has enabled verifiable predictions to be made. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is an explanation that has not yet been tested sufficiently to be regarded as a theory. AGW is neither theory nor hypothesis but is a large number of predictions made as a result of various theories, together with the observations that have verified many of these predictions.

    As mandas pointed out, there is no requirement for experimentation, and if you are trying to suggest that people studying climate change have not made predictions that have since been verified, you are quite wrong.

  116. #116 ronnie
    October 30, 2010

    Thank you, Mr. Simons,
    after reading your response to my comment #110, I realize that I was essentially wrong… I wrote: IMO, AGW is an hypothesis as opposed to theory because it has not been tested by independent, verifiable experiments.

    I now realize that AGW is a model… not to be confused with an ‘hypothesis or ‘theory’.

    Thanks again,
    -ronnie

  117. #117 ronnie
    October 30, 2010

    As one who wishes to respect the scientific method I accept specific distinctions of terms, roughly stated…
    MODEL; The most basic element of science.

    HYPOTHESIS; A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.

    and THEORY; When models/hypothesis have been tested sufficiently.
    -ronnie

  118. #118 ronnie
    October 31, 2010

    Hej you guys,
    Happy All Hallows Eve.
    Hope that your festivities are at least as scary as our carbon caused climate crisis!

    Boooooo.
    -ronnie

  119. #119 mandas
    October 31, 2010

    ronnie

    With regard your ‘definitions’ at post 117, I also wish to respect the scientific method. So could you please do likewise and provide a source for all the information you provide. You can’t just make stuff up or ask that we accept something without knowing where it came from. Then we can determine whether the informationis legitimate or not.

    Thanks

  120. #120 ronnie
    October 31, 2010

    mandas#119With regard your ‘definitions’ at post 117…provide a source for all the information you provide.

    As one may have noticed upon reading post #117, I was making a rough distinction between the terms ‘model’, ‘hypothesis’ and ‘theory’.

    I’m not quite sure what you mean when you say:
    mandas#119
    You can’t just make stuff up…

    mandas#119…or ask that we accept something without knowing where it came from.

    My intention is not to ask you to accept my ideas, rather I ask that you consider their merits or lack thereof and share with us your rational.

    mandas#119 Then we can determine whether the information is legitimate or not.

    I suspect that it is not your intention but… asking for a ‘legitimate’ source for a statement or assertion as one’s sole basis of determination does appear to be an appeal to Authority.

    I can understand that you wish to have an Authoritative source upon which to rely, but I also appreciate independent reasoning. So, based on your own inherent intellect and knowledge of the subject matter…do those distinctions seem reasonable (though, admittedly insufficient to qualify as definitions)?

    -ronnie

  121. #121 mandas
    October 31, 2010

    ronnie

    Asking for the source of your material or for evidence to support a position is not ‘appealing to authority’. It is simply how science is done, and since you suggested at post #117 that you wished to respect the scientific method, then I was simply asking you to follow it.

    I have already indicated that I do not accept your definition of ‘theory’, where you suggested that it had to be based on verifiable experiment – and I have already provided reasons for that rejection. Others have also rejected that definition. However, you did not follow up with answers to my questions regarding whether you considered a number of theories to be legitimate, based on their obvious incompatibility with experiment.

    I also do not accept your definition of a model. A ‘model’ is not, as you suggested, the ‘most basic element of science’. Indeed, a model is a mathematical (or similar) expression of a theory, in order to make predictions or derivations of the theory. I accept your definition of ‘hypothesis’ though.

    But this is why I asked for your source. Are these your definitions, or did you source them from somewhere?

    You also did not follow up with a response to my questions about your stated requirement for a theory to ‘make sense’ before you accepted it as valid (post #114), and that AGW did not make sense to you. How are you going with those?

  122. #122 Chris S.
    November 1, 2010

    Surely the “most basic element of science” is an observation (either experimental or field)?

  123. #123 adelady
    November 1, 2010

    Observations?

    Usually. But sometimes people come up with ideas and then look for evidence for and against. Against says go back and think again. For says keep looking.

  124. #124 ronnie
    November 1, 2010

    Good to have you back with us, adelady.
    Yes, looking for evidence for AND against is an objective approach to reaching one’s own conclusions.

    Sometimes it seems that drawing one’s own conclusions based on the evidence is considered invalid because one is not in accord with the Authoritative opinion.

    A good example is the link you supplied: http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/leading-edge/sugar-maple-industry-climate-change-eff

    The authors of the study apparently blamed Warm weather for the damaged trees. As I see it- it was warm weather, followed by a killing frost that resulted in the damage. So… future GW will mitigate such frost events and the suger maples will enjoy a longer growing season as time passes.

    Just another example of where my opinion and those of the authors are incongruent.

    -ronnie

  125. #125 mandas
    November 1, 2010

    ronnie

    Hate to sound crude, but opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one, and most of them are full of shit.

    When it comes down to opinion vs a properly constituted study which examines the evidence, I know which one I will go with.

    By the way, how are you going with the response to my earlier questions?

  126. #126 ronnie
    November 1, 2010

    Dear mandas,
    Where to begin?
    It is hard to keep up with all your questions.

    My efforts to understand the process of the scientific method is ongoing. For example… what is the difference between a scientific observation and a scientific experiment? Concerning Relativity: Was it a scientific observation or scientific experiment, when people studied a solar eclipse to see if the fabric of space was bent by gravitational forces. If it was a scientific experiment then General Relativity has been tested and validated… since the observations indicated that light was bent- thus Einstein was correct.

    So, in my understanding, there has been at least one experiment for General Relativity that did not falsify the hypothesis.

    Has there been any comparable tests or experiments for AGW?
    -ronnie

  127. #127 Ian Forrester
    November 1, 2010

    ronnie asks:

    Has there been any comparable tests or experiments for AGW?

    Yes

  128. #128 ronnie
    November 1, 2010

    Hej Ian,

    Wonderful!

    Please, if you (or any one) would supply links… I would like to read about them.
    -ronnie

  129. #129 mandas
    November 1, 2010

    ronnie

    Oh well, if I have confused you with too many questions I will simplify it.

    You indicated (at post #97) that you had problems with AGW because it didn’t make sense to you. You then indicated that you accepted evolution (at post #110) because it did make sense. The implication – more like a statement of absolute – that you reject of accept ‘theories’ based on their inherent ‘sense’ to you.

    This therefore suggests that your criteria for whether you accept or question a theory is not based on evidence or whether the experts who have studied the data for decades think the theory is valid, but based on some sort of ‘gut feel’. I then put forward the suggestion that you must therefore reject quantum theory, because there is no way that it can make sense to you, unless you are either a quantum physicist (which I doubt) or are lying.

    But of course, I am almost certain that you do NOT reject quantum theory, because to do so would highlight a degree of ignorance of the most profound level. So many modern devices rely on quantum theory models – such as computers and GPS – that to reject it is ludicrous.

    Since you appear to be a relatively intelligent person, that means your reason for accepting or rejecting a theory cannot possibly be for the reason – that it makes sense to you – that you put forward.

    So – what is the real reason you have chosen to reject AGW?

    Simple enough?

  130. #130 skip
    November 1, 2010

    ronnie:

    We of course cannot conduct what we in the social sciences generally regard as the holy grail, or the classical experiment. In other words, we cannot have a “control” earth where all variables are the same but *without* supplementing atmospheric CO2 and compare it to a “treatment” earth where we introduce the additional CO2 and see how these two earths differ in some post-test.

    What we *have* conducted perforce is a “natural experiment”. The theory that increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will cause an increase in Earth’s average temperature over time was posited over a century ago. The additional carbon was added, and the the temperature data have confirmed the hypothesis, with all variations (e.g., early 20th century cooling resulting from aerosols or a unique high point in 1998 caused by an especially potent El Nino event) and significant potential alternate causes (e.g. variations in solar radiation or the Earth’s orbit/tilt) accounted for up to this point.

    This of course does not mean we can rule out the possibility that the scientific consensus on this point could possibly change–to deny the possibility is to be anti-scientific. But what we do know is that the *current* available evidence *overwhelmingly* has confirmed the theory.

    This in fact, is what Coby’s link to this thread summarizes, although I confess I have not read it specifically.

  131. #131 ronnie
    November 3, 2010

    129mandasSo – what is the real reason you have chosen to reject AGW? Simple enough?

    Yes, A simple question. Straight forward and to the point.

    The AGW hypothesis that Man influences the climate is, for the most part, reasonable… the issues I introduce are those that deal with the conclusions that Climate Change, Global Warming and AGW are bad. So to respond to what I think you were asking…

    Why do you not believe there is a carbon caused climate crisis?

    Because:

    Once upon a time I thought the worst President in the history of the United States was wrong because he did not support the Kyoto Agreement. So I thought it only prudent to back up that opinion by learning more about Man made Global Warming. I found out it had another name… Anthropogenic Global Warming. The more I read the less sense it made.

    The planet had been warming for thousands of years and the resulting interglacial seemed like a good thing.

    And one day I see this hockey stick graph and suddenly there were things I learned in school about Anthropology, archeology, history, politics, and biology that must be wrong if this Dr. Mann was correct. Such a conclusion just did not seem right… No wine grapes in England or agriculture in Greenland during the 11th century? What about the ice in the Potomac River that Gen. Washington had to deal with during the LIA…? Nope, with all due respect for Micheal’s Authority, something was askew.

    Then there came the many ‘alarming’ claims about a climate ‘crisis’. Things like: Our children’s future will consist of severe and numerous storms and drought and expanding deserts, war, disease, and famine… you know, stuff that has been going on since before recorded time.

    So, what is the cause of all Man’s future suffering? It turns out to be GHGs… more specifically: CO2! Yes a trace gas that is as vital to life on this planet as H2O.

    Computer models suggest; Too much! Too Much! Too Much CO2 and forecast horrible events at some time in the future at some place on the planet. The experts have spoken.

    Then, with certitude worthy of The Bishops of Rome it was revealed that this impending calamity can be averted.
    How?
    The world needs to know!

    It turns out that the solution is quite simple (though not easy). Just gather together 1,000,000 parts of Earth atmosphere and pick out 35 carbon dioxide molecules. See? Those 35 little moles, removed from the 999,965 other parts that make our air, will save the World from Armageddon or at least will keep the Earth from becoming Lopsided.
    http://www.livescience.com/environment/050629_lopsided_planet.html

    For many, this all seems quite plausable. I know this because on a number of occasions I have attempted to share my reasoning with others, and a few have asserted that MY logic was faulty because… I may be an asshole, not serious, delusional, dumb, stupid, insane… and my personal favorite, wrong. These seven aurguments (among others -that may be wise not to include on this forum) are frequently the foundation used to rebutt my premise that:
    Climate Change does.
    Global warming is.
    AGW models are opinion.
    CO2 is good.

    Until someone offers a rationale that carries more steel than: ‘You are wrong because They are right’, I see no reason to start believing that we are doomed to “extinction” because of an unchecked increase in atmospheric CO2.

    There you be, mandas, the above are a sampling of the reasons I do not agree with some of the conventional dogma surrounding the climate change debate.

    Sincerely,
    ronnie

  132. #132 coby
    November 3, 2010

    Hi ronnie, thanks for the forthright explanation of how you came to your conclusions. It is interesting to note that you have not made a single logical or scientific argument, you have instead argued from incredulity: it just seems wrong to you and contradicts things you thought you knew already. This makes it hard to rebut, nothing concrete to address.

    So I thought I might start at the beginning of your described journey and try to nail down some facts. You said the climate has been warming for thousands of years (you also said there was a LIA 200 years ago??) can you please provide a source of temperature data that supports this assertion? This is a graph I often refer to, I have never been shown a substantially conflicting picture:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

    Where do you get the idea that climate has been warming for thousands of years?

  133. #133 mandas
    November 4, 2010

    Ronnie

    You still didn’t answer my question about theories which make sense and those that don’t, and based on what you have said, there would probably be nothing I could say or do that would change your mind. You have decided. And despite the mountains of evidence confirming AGW, you have decided to go with the bloggers and opinion writers rather than the scientists who actually know what they are talking about. That’s very sad.

    I would like to respond to so many of your points, but where to start? And anyway, it won’t make any difference even if I were to show you the evidence that many of your ideas are incorrect. As I said, you appear to have made up your mind. But just a couple of things because I just can’t leave such comments alone (must be a character flaw of mine).

    “….The planet had been warming for thousands of years and the resulting interglacial seemed like a good thing…”

    Do you even have the slightest piece of evidence for this? If so, please produce it.

    “….And one day I see this hockey stick graph and suddenly there were things I learned in school about Anthropology, archeology, history, politics, and biology that must be wrong if this Dr. Mann was correct….”

    In what way does the ‘hockey stick’ invalidate any of those areas of study? In what way? Come on, you can’t just throw statements like that out without explanation.

    “…No wine grapes in England or agriculture in Greenland during the 11th century?…”

    This has no relevance to anything. There are wine grapes in Finland now. What’s your point?

    “…What about the ice in the Potomac River that Gen. Washington had to deal with during the LIA…??

    Apart from the fact that the so-called LIA and MWP were regional phenomena, you get ice on the Potomac now. But today, we call it winter. Again, what’s your point?

    “….So, what is the cause of all Man’s future suffering? It turns out to be GHGs… more specifically: CO2! Yes a trace gas that is as vital to life on this planet as H2O….”

    Yes, CO2 is vital to life on this planet. But too much of anything is not a good thing. I have already shown you the evidence that increasing CO2 is not the boon to plants and crops that you once thought – but I am not sure if the evidence was enough to sway you from your uniformed opinion. Was it?

    “…It turns out that the solution is quite simple (though not easy). Just gather together 1,000,000 parts of Earth atmosphere and pick out 35 carbon dioxide molecules….”

    Huh? What? Leaving aside the fact that 35ppm is not the issue, why won’t you accept that small amounts of a substance can have a major impact? I bet you wouldn’t walk into a room which had 35ppm of sarin.

    “…the above are a sampling of the reasons I do not agree with some of the conventional dogma surrounding the climate change debate….”

    When an opinion or set of beliefs cannot be changed by facts or evidence, you have dogma. There is only one side of this debate where that holds true – and it isn’t the scientific side.

  134. #134 skip
    November 4, 2010

    The more I read the less sense it [AGW] made. –Ronnie #97

    Could you give a few specific examples of what you read . . . –Skip #98

    The conclusions I read concerning the Keeling Curve appeared odd to me. –ronnie #99

    Where did you read them? –skip #100

    Don’t recall. — ronnie #103

    It seems to me that the seasonal oscillations should not remain stable if Man’s carbon contribution was combining with deforestation to cause warming. — Ronnie #99

    Why does it “seem” this way to you?” –Skip #100

    It seems logical. — ronnie #103

    [So you think its true because you think its true.]

    Are you bringing literature/expertise to this subject you wish to share? –skip #100

    I can understand that you wish to have an Authoritative source upon which to rely, but I also appreciate independent reasoning. –ronnie #120

    And in answer to a rhetorical question . . .

    Why do you not believe there is a carbon caused climate crisis?

    . . . you cut and pasted your initial mantra:

    Once upon a time I thought the worst President . . . The more I read the less sense it made.

    Ronnie, so which is it that explains your conclusions—what you’ve “read” or your own “independent reasoning”?

    I could go on on several other points but I would prefer to focus on just the simple matter of how we come to “know” anything about science.

    I frankly think your epistemology needs a massive overhaul, ronnie; just calling it how I see it.

  135. #135 skip
    November 4, 2010

    Sorry about the creep show, ronnie.

    I swear Coby does not text me and Mandas so we can all post within an Earth’s carbon-adjusted orbital reduction/increase of each other.

  136. #136 Chris S.
    November 4, 2010

    Skip, it looks like narrative theory is becoming more widely recognised ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/science-narrative-and-heresy/ ).

  137. #137 skip
    November 4, 2010

    Unfortunately, the narrative of the heretic is self-reinforcing. Once a scientist starts to perceive criticism as an attack on their values/ideas rather than embracing it in order to improve (or abandon) an approach, it is far more likely that they will in fact escalate the personalisation of the debate, leading to still further criticism of their conduct, which will be interpreted as a further attack on their values etc.

    Substitute “lay disputant” for “scientist” and it sounds very much like someone we know.

    Thanks for the link, Chris. I don’t spend near enough time on RC.

  138. #138 mandas
    November 4, 2010

    As I was sitting in the train on the way home from work last night, there was a program on ABC Radio National (for our American friends – our public broadcaster) that involved a number of journalists discussing the reporting of climate change. And it got me thinking a little more and I realised there was more I wanted to say on the subject in response to some of Ronnie’s claims, but unfortunately they didn’t occur to me at the time. And it is sort of along the lines of narratives and drawing conclusions which complete contradict the evidence.

    Ronnie has suggested in his posts that the climate has been warming for ‘thousands of years’. Leaving aside the fact that there is no evidence for this, it does show quite clearly that he accepts that the climate IS warming.

    He also accepts that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are increasing. He has not gone so far as to blame humans for this, but I don’t think he has any doubts. I mean, you only have to look around at the amount of ‘pollution’ being pumped into the air from cars, factories and powerstations to understand this very simple concept.

    Ronnie is also well aware of the well understood principle of how CO2 absorbs LWR, and how the ‘greenhouse’ principle is important to keep us all from freezing to death. Without CO2 acting as an absorber of heat, we would all be dead.

    So, he accepts the climate is warming. He knows CO2 absorbs heat. And he accepts that humans are increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Most people would put the obvious two and two together, but ronnie states that he does not accept AGW, because it doesn’t make sense to him.

    I can only stand in total incredulity at the logical twists which would be required to draw such a conclusion. It cannot be based on ‘sense’, because to draw the conclusion he does is the total opposite to sense (and anyway, I have already tried to draw him out on the ‘sense’ of quantum theory, and he has consistently refused to answer). So the only conclusion that it is possible to draw is that ronnie – like just about every other denier – refuses to accept AGW for some other reason. It’s not the science. It’s not the logical rationality. It must be something else.

    I can accept that someone who is unintelligent or who has no appreciable education, and who thnks that Wattsupmybutt or Lord Monkeytown are science, can come away with a skewed view of reality. But ronnie does appear to be reasonably intelligent. So the only explanations I can determine is that it is either a political position, or is based on the denial of a reality that is uncomfortable.

    I wonder what the reason is ronnie?

  139. #139 PaulinMI
    November 5, 2010

    Ronnie has suggested in his posts that the climate has been warming for ‘thousands of years’. Leaving aside the fact that there is no evidence for this, . . .

    maybe here
    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.php

    or here
    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm

  140. #140 skip
    November 5, 2010

    But those data show warming *and* cooling back down, Paul.

    ronnie meant “undulating”, not steadily “warming”, I think.

    I hope.

  141. #141 PaulinMI
    November 5, 2010

    I think the last 20k years generally shows warming.

  142. #142 skip
    November 5, 2010

    Ok I see what you’re saying.

    That is actually a question that I’ve never nailed down: To what extent is Anarctic temperature a metric of global temperature trends?

    In any event the temperature change over 20k years for whatever reasons is no parallel to the one we’re creating that will most likely take place within the century.

    Species can adapt or comfortably die off over 20k years. We are risking upheaval that takes place over a few decades.

  143. #143 PaulinMI
    November 5, 2010

    Agreed,
    It doesn’t change the current situation.

  144. #144 mandas
    November 7, 2010

    Thank you for providing those links to the temperature graphs. They provide a perfect example of that favourite technique of the denialist – cherry picking.

    At first glance, you might look at the graph and say – oh yes, mandas is wrong, the world has been warming for the past 20k years or so. But you need to look a little closer at the relevant information. Go to this link here, and check out some of the other graphs:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
    (yes, I know its wikipedia, but the graphs come from authorative sources so we can use them)

    Whilst you can claim – from the Milankovich cycles anc ice core graph, that the world has been warming over the past 20k years, you can also see from the geological graph that it has been cooling for the past 5m years or so. So which is correct? Both – and neither.

    We need to select the correct relevant period for our data for it to have any meaning. If you zoom in on the Milankovich graph, you will see that we should actually be in a cooling period after the peak – indeed, the paleoclimate graph suggests that it has been for the past 4k years. So rather than warming over 20k years, the Earth warmed and should now be cooling. But we aren’t!!

    Over the past century the planet has been warming (instrumental records). And it is this warming, overlaying the fact that we should be cooling – which is the relevant period in the context of this debate.

    So – for all of you out there who want to use data to prove a point. The old saying of ‘there are lies, damn lies, and statistics’ holds true, but don’t be a denier. If you want to be relevant in a scientific debate, use the CORRECT data.

  145. #145 ronnie
    November 14, 2010

    “Over the past century the planet has been warming (instrumental records). And it is this warming, overlaying the fact that we should be cooling – which is the relevant period in the context of this debate.”

    Hej mandas, so if I understand your point… The Climate debate is best confined to discussing post 1900 data only?
    -ronnie

  146. #146 ronnie
    November 14, 2010

    Dear coby, re: your Nov. 3 post #132… your very welcome.

    As for your question(s);
    “You said the climate has been warming for thousands of years (you also said there was a LIA 200 years ago??) can you please provide a source of temperature data that supports this assertion?”

    My intent was to point out that, on average, the Earth has experienced (thousands of years) Global Warming during the current Holocene.

    Based on my history lessons in the 7th grade, The LIA seemed to lose it’s adverse impact on society around the 19th century. I was not permitted to retain the text books (the source) we used in my public education.
    -ronnie

    Post Script:

    Thanks, coby, for the link you provided.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

    It is much appreciated.

  147. #147 mandas
    November 14, 2010

    ronnie

    Climate is influenced by numerous factors, all of which are relevant to the debate. Climate has also undergone many changes in the past, always as a result of some change in one of the primary influences – solar irradiance, orbital factors, oceanic currents, etc etc.

    When you want to talk about the current climatic changes, you need to look at what influences are changing right now – not what may have changed 20,000 years ago. So – you can look at the past in an attempt to understand how particular changes affect climate, but it is pointless to argue about past changes when those influences are absent today.

    So yes and no. Every analysis of current climate shows that the major past influences of change are either absent, or should be causing a slight slight cooling. So it is pointless to argue about ‘natural influences’ etc when they are just not playing a major role in the current situation. Even those graphs suggest that. The ONLY drivers which are present today are GHGs and aerosols.

    So unless you (or anyone) can demonstrate the presence of other important climatic change drivers – which no-one has even come close to doing, despite the denialist community giving it their best shots – we should actually focus on the known problem. Do you disagree?

  148. #148 ronnie
    November 14, 2010

    Say, you guys (and any gals that may be reading this thread), are you familiar with the following musical groups?

    Tommy James and the Shondells
    Led Zeppelin
    The Monkeys
    and
    Creedence Clearwater Revival

    -ronnie

  149. #149 mandas
    November 14, 2010

    ronnie

    I assume you mean ‘The Monkees’, but yes, of course.

  150. #150 ronnie
    November 16, 2010

    Yes… The Monkees.

  151. #151 ronnie
    November 20, 2010

    It is my feeling that common phrases such as ‘Warm-monger’, ‘alarmist’, ‘climate coward’ and similar sobriquets are unproductive and therefore; like terms such as “denier”, “lier”, and “delusional”, are inappropriate.

    In an effort to clarify my views on Carbon Dioxide, Climate Change, Global Warming, Anthropogenic Global Warming, and their effects on the current state and future of the planet, I wish to reach a consensus on some relevant terms and to differentiate terms such as “denier”, “skeptic”, “contrarian”, “heretic” (a person who present ideas which are contrary to popular opinion, belief, and/or the status quo of any practice or branch of knowledge. 2: a person who holds unorthodox opinions in any field [not merely religion] ), “infidel” (One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.) , and secular “blasphemer”.

    denier – Definition:
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/denier
    3. denier – one who denies,; a person who disputes; who is good at or enjoys controversy

    skeptic – Definition:
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/skeptic
    1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

    contrarian – Definition:
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contrarian
    a person who takes an opposing view, esp. one who rejects the majority opinion,

    heretic – Definition:
    http://www.wordiq.com/heretic

    infidel – Definition:
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infidel

    blasphemy – Definition:
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy?show=0&t=1290276200
    2: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

    If these independent definitions are acceptable, than the term “denier” seems less than accurate in describing my position on the issues associated with our discussions as illistrated by my first and subsequent posts.

    If one deems it necessary to pronounce judgment apon me by applying a label… I humbly offer any or all of the following epithets for your consideration:
    blasphemer
    contrarian
    heretic
    infidel
    skeptic

    In further pursuit of mutual agreement I wish to propose a label that is acceptable as a descriptive of ALL our views… “Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis Advocate” (AGWA).

    To be clear… the term AGWA is self accepted only when it is not disassociated with the aforementioned epithet offerings.

    With sincere desire to achieve civil discourse and mutual understanding,
    ronnie

  152. #152 adelady
    November 20, 2010

    ronnie, I know that many people who fit the ‘denier’ tag do enjoy disputation, but that’s not the usual meaning of the word.

    The classic freudian definition just means that people faced with something unpleasant – like a cancer diagnosis, or an addiction to alcohol/ smoking, or a violent partner – will just deny the reality. (He didn’t mean it – he really loves me, I can stop whenever I want to, doctors are often wrong.) This meaning is also incorporated into the 5 stages of grief, denial being the first stage. (Anger being the second.)

    You can be disputatious without being a denier, and you can be a denier without being disputatious.

    Denier in this context just means someone who really, truly does n.o.t want to acknowledge reality. Such people will stubbornly, or even wildly, search for any excuse, no matter how feeble, to reinforce the view they want to maintain.

    When Mark Twain said “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt” the issue of global warming (and a dozen other modern issues) were not on the table.

  153. #153 ronnie
    November 21, 2010

    Dear adelady,
    Yes, that is one of many definitions.
    One that seems to be applicable to some people on both sides of the AGW debate.
    -ronnie

  154. #154 mandas
    November 21, 2010

    ronnie

    I wouldn’t use the word ‘denier’ to describe someone who is on the ‘pro’ side of the AGW debate. Because they are not really ‘denying’ the facts of AGW as we know them.

    However, among the AGWAs (as you describe them), there are many different opinions as to the extent of the problem. At one end of the spectrum are those who think it isn’t a problem at all. This includes people like Richard Lindzen, who think that any changes will be minor. I wouldn’t call these people deniers, and it may turn out that they will be right (I disagree with them, but I think it is an important part of the debate). You can call them ‘mildists’ (yeah, its a crap name, but the best I could think of while typing this).

    Then there are those who think that it doesn’t matter how much the climate may change, things like warmer temperatures and increased CO2 are actually good things. These are closer to being deniers (and probably should go into that group), because they don’t really have any evidence to support what they are saying – it is more or less (IMO) just people who realise the evidence of change is overwhelming and it is stupid to deny it, but they can deny an uncomfortable ‘reality’.

    If you want to discuss semantics and definitions, then you might want to include the word ‘alarmist’ for those who think we are all going to drown under rising sea levels etc some time in the next few years (I don’t count myself one of those – but I am willing to accept they may be right and I may be wrong, just like the ‘mildists’ may also be right).

    I put myself in the ‘moderatists’ camp (yeah another crap name). I think that there will be moderate change, but this coupled with my personal knowledge of the ecosystem leads me to believe there will be disasterous consequences (does that make me an ‘alarmist’?). Not through mechanisms like rising sea levels, but through wholesale extinctions of threatened species, trophic collapse and major impacts on the environmental systems that we rely on for support.

    What I am suggesting to you is that the time for debating whether or not climate change is occuring has long past, as is the debate over whether or not there will be harmful consequences. There WILL be some, and its about time we started to develop mitigation strategies before it is too late.

  155. #155 ronnie
    November 27, 2010

    Hej mandas,

    mandas154 wrote:
    ronnie,

    “I wouldn’t use the word ‘denier’ to describe someone who is on the ‘pro’ side of the AGW debate. Because they are not really ‘denying’ the facts of AGW as we know them”.

    Agreed… As one who does not dispute the “facts” and am a proponent of AGW (after all, I live in Minnesota) “denier” would an inappropriate label.

    So what label best suits me?

    When it comes to my perspective concerning the ‘evidence’ of AGW and it’s projected effects versus that of popular opinion, there is a clear divergence of interpretation. Since my conclusions (as some on this thread have often pointed out) are unorthodox and contrary to the status quo, then, I believe ‘heretic’ is the mantle most fitting.

    mandas154 wrote:
    “However, among the AGWAs (as you describe them), there are many different opinions as to the extent of the problem. At one end of the spectrum are those who think it isn’t a problem at all. This includes people like Richard Lindzen, who think that any changes will be minor. I wouldn’t call these people deniers, and it may turn out that they will be right (I disagree with them, but I think it is an important part of the debate). You can call them ‘mildists’ (yeah, its a crap name, but the best I could think of while typing this).”

    Since this guy does not subscribe to the principle of a CO2 Caused Climate Crisis, perhaps “infidel” (One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.) is an appropriate label for Mr. Lindzen.

    mandas154 wrote:
    “Then there are those who think that it doesn’t matter how much the climate may change, things like warmer temperatures and increased CO2 are actually good things. These are closer to being deniers (and probably should go into that group), because they don’t really have any evidence to support what they are saying – it is more or less (IMO) just people who realise the evidence of change is overwhelming and it is stupid to deny it, but they can deny an uncomfortable ‘reality’.

    How about secular “blasphemer”… it is more accurate than ‘denier’ when referring to a prediction that “the climate may change”. After all… how can any one ‘deny’ a prognostication.

    mandas154 wrote:
    “If you want to discuss semantics and definitions, then you might want to include the word ‘alarmist’ for those who think we are all going to drown under rising sea levels etc some time…”

    Personally, I find the word ‘alarmist’ to be pejorative and unproductive, though if such epithets are requested then my preference would be ‘climate coward’ or ‘CO2 Psycho’.

    mandas154 wrote:
    “I put myself in the ‘moderatists’ camp (yeah another crap name). I think that there will be moderate change, but this coupled with my personal knowledge of the ecosystem leads me to believe there will be disasterous consequences (does that make me an ‘alarmist’?). Not through mechanisms like rising sea levels, but through wholesale extinctions of threatened species, trophic collapse and major impacts on the environmental systems that we rely on for support.”

    Yes, that is a popular opinion among those who wish to deliberatively manipulate the climate.

    mandas154 wrote:
    “What I am suggesting to you is that the time for debating whether or not climate change is occuring has long past, as is the debate over whether or not there will be harmful consequences.”

    An interesting suggestion.

    Regarding Climate Change… though you are a relative newbie to this particular thread http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/07/global_warming_turns_35.php
    it still seems odd that this issue of CC is being raised again and again. Since the very first comment, inclusive, there has been no such CC debate. That debate is moot.

    As for the harmful consequences… your second paragraph explicitly states that… “among the AGWAs (as you describe them), there are many different opinions as to the extent of the problem. At one end of the spectrum are those who think it isn’t a problem at all.”
    …based on that premise, it seems that such an issue is still open to reasonable debate.

    Resolving to close the debate and summarily rule for action when there are so many differing opinions appears premature.

    mandas154 wrote:
    There WILL be some [harmful consequences], and its about time we started to develop mitigation strategies before it is too late.

    Well, yes Climate Change will have some harmful consequences. It always has and it always will.
    And concurrently, Global Warming will have benefits. It always has and it always will.

    “…before it is too late.” (???)
    sounds alarming!!;>)

    Happy Thanksgiving,
    -ronnie

  156. #156 ronnie
    December 24, 2010

    A Merry Christmas and an Non Alarming Solstice to all.
    -ronnie

  157. #157 ronnie
    June 30, 2011

    A blessed Litha to all.
    May the warmth of the solstice bring you pleasant weather.
    -ronnie

  158. #158 Wow
    July 1, 2011

    “And concurrently, Global Warming will have benefits. It always has and it always will.”

    Hmm. Tell that to the Woolly Mammoth.

    Of course, you probably don’t care about the death of humanity, so I guess that you consider it a benefit if we’d died off.

  159. #159 Dan Pangburn
    September 19, 2011

    Find out what really drove average global temperatures since 1895, why temperatures have been flat for a decade and what to expect for the next couple of decades (a down trend of about 0.13°C per decade) in the pdf made public 3/10/11 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true.

  160. #160 mandas
    September 19, 2011

    Dan

    Or we can save our brains from becoming atrophied and simply ignore all the drivel you spruke.

  161. #161 Wow
    September 20, 2011

    “why temperatures have been flat for a decade”

    Yes, despite a very low level of activity from the sun, temperatures have risen somewhat anyway because of the overwhelming accumulated effect of CO2 rises from human causes.

  162. #162 skip
    September 20, 2011

    I admit I Googled “spruke”.

    The closest I found was:

    spruik — vb

    archaic , slang ( Austral ) ( intr ) to speak in public (used esp of a showman or salesman)

    I figured this is what you meant, Mandas. Divested of all identifying demarcations other than “Australian slang”, I would have thought “spruke” involved a crime against nature involving sheep.

  163. #163 Wow
    September 21, 2011

    Dan (and for anyone else listening to him), reading the paper says that over that time period (up until 2005), he had figured 40% from sunspot activity. That leaves 60% for everything else.

    He then states that the sea contributes 40%, but since H2O doesn’t actually cause an exothermic reaction, where does that heat come from?

    That’s where he falls over.

    Hard.

    Of course, you could go to Tamino’s site and read what he got when he removed the trends of ENSO/PDO/et al and checked the record against the log of CO2 concentrations.

    Or look at BPL’s post on the correlation of temperature with CO2:

    http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html

    And, after all, since this “unpaid” Mech Eng merely used correlation to prove the causation, you can’t really complain about this one, and this comes with the numbers you can verify yourself.

  164. #164 mandas
    September 21, 2011

    skip

    I did not realise that ‘spruik’ was an Australian slang term – I thought it was a normal word used in every english speaking country. You know – a ‘spruiker’ is someone who, amongst other things, stands outside an event and tries to encourage people to go inside by talking up the event – such as a carnival spruiker. And thanks for correcting my spelling. Do you really miss snowman that much that you are morphing into him?

    wow

    If you want to know a little more about Dan’s modus operandi, scroll up to the discussion earlier in this thread.

  165. #165 mandas
    September 21, 2011

    Hey Dan!

    How did you go with that paper that you said was ‘in review’ last August? I guess it has been published in a journal by now. Could you provide us with a link please?

  166. #166 Dan Pangburn
    September 22, 2011

    mandas,
    It was published as an opinion piece but is not available on line. I have refined things a bit since then anyway. Most of my stuff is available on line in several pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. My latest work should show up there in a day or two.

  167. #167 Wow
    September 23, 2011

    Well, Dan, problem here is that opinions are, as everyone knows, like arseholes.

    Why then should someone look into yours?

  168. #168 Dan Pangburn
    September 24, 2011

    Wow,

    There is a pretty good chance that some other readers of this blog may actually be interested in climate.

    My work is all described in detail as to method, data sources, and results. It is all available on line. It can be processed on a desktop computer. The results are presented as graphs. Anyone can check it.

    I am unpaid (just curious) and have no axe to grind except to avoid the waste that will occur with any effort to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide with intent to reduce Global Warming or Climate Change.

    I recently did a check of my findings. Using measured data until 1990 to determine the coefficients in the equation, the equation was then used to predict the temperature trends from 1990 through 2010. This prediction was then compared to the measured temperatures for that period. The predicted trends are an excellent match to the measured trends including the flat temperatures for the last decade.

    This equation calculates temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy and predicts that the future average global temperature trend is about -0.13°C per decade (that means down) in spite of the expected increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The downtrend can be as much as -0.22°C per decade if the sun goes really quiet.

  169. #169 mandas
    September 26, 2011

    …..and have no axe to grind except to avoid the waste that will occur with any effort to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide with intent to reduce Global Warming or Climate Change….”

    You would be harder pressed to find a more hypocritical statement that this. If you have ‘no axe to grind’, why are you inventing a conclusion that is ideological, and totally at odds with all the available evidence?

    Why don’t you just stop acting like an ideological fool and accept that scientists who have been studying and warning about this problem for decades know more about it than you – an admitted amateur who has done no study, who is basing his whole hypothesis on something that has been discredited multiple times, and who’s total approach to climatology is ideological and not based on evidence?

  170. #170 Wow
    September 26, 2011

    “There is a pretty good chance that some other readers of this blog may actually be interested in climate.”

    Yup, that’s true. But why then are you trying to misinform them?

    “My work is all described in detail as to method, data sources, and results.”

    So is the IPCC report, but you insist that is wrong. Why is it that you are right when so many others are wrong?

    Worse, your blogroll entry is not peer reviewed, at best pal reviewed.

    “have no axe to grind except to avoid the waste that will occur with any effort to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide with intent to reduce Global Warming or Climate Change.”

    Well, that’s an axe to grind, isn’t it.

    You’ve decided what you want and you’re looking to find out what will prove your point.

    This is not science.

    It’s not even a coherent desire: you aren’t saying that AGW is wrong but that you are against the waste in doing anything about it. Yet you don’t care about any waste of doing nothing about it, nor the waste you’re putting in to a delaying action.

    “This equation calculates temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy”

    Yes, curve fitting will do this. Except that you’re applying that data to the data you made your equation to fit. This means there is no predictive power shown.

    “and predicts that the future average global temperature trend is about -0.13°C per decade (that means down)”

    But as said earlier, the predictive power of a curve fit doesn’t exist. And what are your errors and your confidence in that? After all, if it doesn’t go down but goes up instead, at what point is your prediction proven wrong? When it’s gone up by another 0.03C? When it hasn’t gone down for three years?

    “The downtrend can be as much as -0.22°C per decade if the sun goes really quiet.”

    It’s already coming out of a minimum. A very deep minimum. So what point is it called “really quiet”?

    And that fact also demonstrates your lack of predictive ability: sunspots at the last minimum saw temperatures 0.7 or more degrees cooler. If sunspots drive temperature, then you’d have to be including an increasing trend that doesn’t rely on the sunspot numbers.

  171. #171 Dan Pangburn
    September 26, 2011

    The pdf made public 9/24/11 at the CR site shows the excellent match of the predicted temperature trajectory since 1990 with actual measured temperatures. It also shows what the temperature trajectory would look like with the IPCC claim that CO2 is the main driver.

    Average global temperatures are explained by ESST and the time-integral of sunspot numbers.

  172. #172 Wow
    September 26, 2011

    “The pdf made public 9/24/11 at the CR site shows the excellent match of the predicted temperature trajectory since 1990 with actual measured temperatures.”

    And the error bars?.

    “It also shows what the temperature trajectory would look like with the IPCC claim that CO2 is the main driver.”

    Except it doesn’t.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

    “Average global temperatures are explained by ESST and the time-integral of sunspot numbers.”

    Please explain what “time integral of sunspot numbers” mean. Because that means “the sum of all sunspots we have to date” which is ridiculous.

  173. #173 Wow
    September 26, 2011

    PS: Note the appearance of the Number 13 London Bus on the Moon was published http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/you-couldnt-make-it-up-sport-editor-quits-for-bbc-412217.html

    Being published is no proof of any reality of content.

  174. #174 Wow
    September 26, 2011

    See also:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AR4since2000.png

    IPCC AR4 Scenario A2 model projections (blue) vs. GISTEMP (red) since 2000

  175. #175 Dan Pangburn
    September 26, 2011

    Wow,
    You gave an irrelevant website when it would have been so easy to Google the issue and find a relevant one. IPCC shows about 0.1C temperature increase since 2000 because of CO2 increase and the equation also calculates about 0.1C if only CO2 change matters. So my statement is correct, your statement “Except it doesn’t.” is wrong and the website that you name is irrelevant.

    If you had looked at the equation (it is given in the pdf made public 3/10/11) you would see that the time-integral of sunspot numbers is appropriately reduced by the time-integral of the energy being radiated from the planet. The fact that the equation accurately calculates measured temperatures since 1895 should have made that particular instruction unnecessary.

    Look at the last graph in the pdf made public 9/24/11 to see the sharp drop that occurred after the El Nino peaked in March, 2010. The graph that you gave the link to misleadingly implies an impossibly rapid ocean temperature rise and an uptrend when a down trend had started.

  176. #176 Chris S.
    September 26, 2011

    Dan: Do you run your screeds past anyone knowledgeable in the subject before you make them public (as a pdf) in order to catch some of the more obvious errors in your maths & logic?

    Or do you think that posting unsupportable guff is actually providing some sort of service?

  177. #177 Wow
    September 27, 2011

    “IPCC shows about 0.1C temperature increase since 2000 because of CO2 increase and the equation also calculates about 0.1C if only CO2 change matters”

    Ah, so you’ll be able to show this, yes?

    Now, on to your fantasy: what temperature does your graph give for the Medieval Warming Period? What temperature does your graph give for the Triassic period? Permian?

    If, instead you try to match the temperature graph by changing the sunspots, when you need negative sunspots, what does that mean, physically, for our sun?

  178. #178 Wow
    September 27, 2011

    “the time-integral of sunspot numbers is appropriately reduced by the time-integral of the energy being radiated from the planet.”

    OK, so the time-integral of the energy means what? The earth doesn’t radiate on its own. Ask Pluto. And it doesn’t depend on sunspots. There is no mechanism for it to happen.

    So your fantasy requires that the earth radiate a different amount depending on sunspots and that the current state of the earth is the sum of all previous radiation.

    That means that we get to a planet that is only about 6000 years old…